[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 116 (Wednesday, July 11, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H6057-H6064]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 200, STRENGTHENING FISHING 
   COMMUNITIES AND INCREASING FLEXIBILITY IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ACT

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 965 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 965

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant

[[Page H6058]]

     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. 200) to amend the 
     Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to 
     provide flexibility for fishery managers and stability for 
     fishermen, 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 Natural Resources. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed 
     in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such 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 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 
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. BYRNE. 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 Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 965 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 200, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and 
Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act.
  This structured rule makes in order 11 amendments, including 4 
minority and 2 bipartisan amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, I was born and raised in coastal Alabama, so I have 
spent my entire life experiencing the long-held tradition of fishing 
off the Gulf Coast. Some of my best memories growing up were fishing 
with my family, and I have carried on that same tradition with my 
children. I look forward to fishing with my grandchildren once they get 
a little older.
  This isn't a tradition unique to the Gulf Coast. All along America's 
shores, countless families and friends have made so many memories while 
fishing.
  No one wants to be a better steward of our Nation's fisheries than 
those of us who actually enjoy fishing. No one wants a healthier fish 
stock than those of us who have spent our lives on the water.
  That is where H.R. 200 comes in. This bill includes commonsense 
reforms to ensure that our Nation's fisheries remain strong, while also 
being accessible to fishermen from every walk of life.
  Now, I know this bill is about much more than just those of us who 
like to fish recreationally. Commercial fishing is a major economic 
engine in many of our coastal communities, so the bill also ensures 
access to our oceans and ocean resources for our commercial fishermen.
  Just consider these numbers that demonstrate the overall impact of 
fishing on the U.S. economy:
  In 2015, the fishing industry generated $208 billion in sales and 
supported 1.62 million American jobs.
  Approximately 11 million saltwater anglers spent a total of $60.9 
million on fishing trips, which generated roughly $22.7 billion in 
income.
  And I want to make one other point. The underlying bill will also 
ensure that all Americans have access to fresh, sustainable seafood. 
That is important to our Nation's restaurants, but it is also 
especially important to seafood lovers like me.
  If you doubt the importance of the fishing sector, let me tell you 
about red snapper fishing in my home State of Alabama. It is a major 
economic driver for our coastal communities. From restaurants, to gas 
stations, to bait and tackle shops, to the charter boat industry, red 
snapper fishing is critically important to the economy in our coastal 
communities and surrounding areas.
  Unfortunately, the Federal Government has failed for years to 
adequately count the number of red snapper in the Gulf. This has 
resulted in ridiculously short red snapper seasons, which hurt our 
fishermen and the economies in our coastal communities.
  So, how bad was the Federal Government in counting red snapper? Well, 
they weren't even sampling for red snapper on reefs, despite the fact 
that red snapper are reef fish. It made absolutely no sense.
  Colleges and universities, like the University of South Alabama, have 
been able to do a much better job of assessing the health of the red 
snapper stock with far fewer resources. Their data has proven to be 
much more accurate and up to date.
  Thankfully, along with my Gulf Coast colleagues, we have been able to 
work with the Trump administration and the Commerce Department to 
ensure adequate recreational red snapper seasons over the last 2 years. 
But this bill includes reforms I authored to help fix the mismanagement 
of red snapper for all sectors, once and for all. That means allowing 
for greater State control, especially as it relates to stock 
assessments and data collection.
  That is one of the best things about H.R. 200. The bill eliminates 
unscientific timeframes to rebuild fish stocks that unnecessarily 
restrict access to fisheries. Our national fishery policy should be 
based on sound, accurate data.
  The bill goes against the Washington-knows-best approach that has 
failed so many times in the past. By providing greater flexibility to 
fishery managers, we can allow for better management strategies that 
reflect regional needs and demands. We should empower people who live 
and work in the local communities, instead of letting bureaucrats in 
Washington decide what works best.
  As I mentioned earlier, the bill will allow more Americans to have 
access to fresh, sustainable seafood. Currently, around 90 percent of 
seafood consumed in the United States is imported. This is especially 
troubling when you consider that we have an abundance of fish right 
here in our own waters. With reforms included in this bill, we can 
boost access to affordable domestic fish.
  Mr. Speaker, by passing H.R. 200, the House can support our Nation's 
fishermen, American consumers, our coastal communities, and the overall 
American economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting House 
Resolution 965 and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R. 200, the 
Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in 
Fisheries Management Act. It should be better called the empty oceans 
act.
  H.R. 200 really risks rolling back science-based conservation 
efforts, destroying jobs, and hurting our fisheries and fish stocks. It 
undermines successful sustainable fishery management put in place by 
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. That is 
why so many fishermen, scientists, and business owners have come out in 
opposition to the empty oceans act. Many people whose livelihood comes 
from the sea have expressed reservations about the job-destroying 
provisions of H.R. 200 and how it poses a threat to the commercial 
fishing industry and their jobs, which rely on sustainable practices.

[[Page H6059]]

  The Seafood Harvesters of America, a leading trade organization for 
fishermen, authored a letter expressing their concerns with the bill. 
More than 1,000 individuals and organizations have expressed their 
opposition. I had a number of fishermen come by my office today, 
telling me that this bill could cost them their jobs.
  Since its passage, the goal of Magnuson-Stevens has never wavered: 
managing fisheries to ensure sustainability while, of course, realizing 
the potential of the resource. Magnuson-Stevens takes a bottom-up 
approach to resource management where stakeholders on regional fishery 
management councils work to meet the science-based criteria outlined by 
the law.
  We have some success with this approach. Since the year 2000, we have 
seen 44 previously depleted fish stocks rebuilt. Currently, 84 percent 
of fish stocks are no longer overfished.
  In 1976, Magnuson-Stevens was passed to end unregulated fishing 
predominantly by foreign fleets and to develop our own American fleets 
that could benefit from our abundant fisheries. The act was 
strengthened in 1996 and 2006 through bipartisan reauthorizations that 
established science-based fishery management reforms.
  The 1996 reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens bolstered requirements 
to prevent overfishing and rebuild fish stocks. And, in 2006, a 
bipartisan authorization maintained the commitment to sustainable 
fisheries, including accountability and catch limits. These bipartisan 
efforts succeeded to help create the sustainable fisheries that support 
coastal economies throughout America and, of course, consumers both in 
America and worldwide.
  Unfortunately, unlike past reauthorizations, H.R. 200 was crafted 
through a partisan committee process intent on dismantling much of the 
progress made by Magnuson-Stevens over the last 40 years. In fact, the 
bill was reported in a party-line vote--Republicans for; Democrats 
against--with the Republicans continuing to reject attempts to come up 
with a broad bipartisan approach, as this bill has traditionally been 
done, that supports both commercial and recreational fishing interests 
and, of course, maintaining science-based reforms around 
sustainability.

                              {time}  1315

  Sadly, H.R. 200 inserts politics into how we manage our fisheries in 
several crucial areas. The bill erodes the role that science plays in 
managing our fisheries.
  The bill guts science-based annual catch limit requirements through 
the creation of many exemptions for key species. These exemptions 
include many smaller fish that are absolutely critical as prey for 
valuable commercial and recreational predator species as part of a 
delicately balanced ecosystem. Hundreds of other species are exempted 
through this bill which dramatically increases the chances that 
overfishing will occur, leading to the devastation, both for sportsmen 
and commercial fishermen.
  Catch limits are important to help conserve fisheries and are among 
the most successful provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. By eroding 
those provisions, this bill would allow for a long-term depletion of 
fish stocks. It can devastate the economies of local communities, 
destroy jobs, and threaten the recovery and stability of our ocean 
ecosystems.
  This bill also weakens the data collection requirements that ensure 
that data-driven, science-based management is used for our fisheries. 
Data is currently collected through a broad range of sources, and the 
determination of the best available data is used by NOAA Fisheries and 
the regional fishery management councils. H.R. 200 would weaken data 
collection processes and harm the role of science in successful 
management of our fishery resources.
  Weakening science-based provisions is only one of the ways that this 
bill inserts politics into what should be a scientific question, the 
management of our fisheries. This bill not only erodes science-based 
management practices, but it rolls back meaningful accountability 
requirements for recreational anglers. Large groups representing a few 
members of the fishing community and businesses that sell equipment and 
boats want to see that these jobs are sustained over time.
  According to data from the Recreational Boating & Fishing Foundation 
released in May of 2018, participation in recreational fishing has 
increased for the past 2 years; 49 million Americans went fishing in 
2017, an increase over the prior year. So the recreational side is 
strong under the current provisions of Magnuson-Stevens.
  And, of course, recreational fishermen are not the only beneficiaries 
of the science-based approach. According to the National Marine 
Manufacturers Association, U.S. sales of boats and marine products 
increased 7 percent since the last passage in 2016.
  So from 2016 to 2017, we saw a number of States: Florida, Texas, 
Michigan, North Carolina, Minnesota, California, Wisconsin, South 
Carolina, and Georgia, with double-digit increases in the sales of new 
boats, engines, trailers, and accessories, creating good jobs for 
Americans.
  Recreational anglers and the businesses that rely upon their support 
are doing well and thriving, and this growth is a direct result of 
science-based fishery management practices fostered by Magnuson that 
this very bill would systematically dismantle, destroying good American 
jobs.
  Instead of destroying jobs, what the Magnuson-Stevens Act does is 
ensure that our maritime industries will thrive now and in the future. 
And because of the success of Magnuson-Stevens, U.S. fisheries are 
stabilizing and rebounding.
  With the bill working as intended, it would be absurd to pass this 
bill and roll back these very policies that have led to job creation 
and growth, increased enjoyment for recreational fishermen, and better 
sustainable practices of ecosystem management.
  The Empty Oceans Act also inserts dangerous loopholes into Magnuson 
and it is including exemptions to rebuilding requirements that have 
helped recover successfully depleted fish stocks.
  H.R. 200 potentially exempts hundreds of species from annual catch 
limits. That can dramatically increase overfishing, and overfishing may 
seem to some lucrative, or to some fun in the short-term, but of course 
it has devastating and nonsustainable consequences for our coastal 
communities that economically depend on the vital industries of 
recreational fishing and sports fishing.
  These exemptions increase the chance of overfishing and lengthen the 
time it takes to rebuild depleted stocks to healthy levels, if ever.
  These loopholes have a devastating effect as well on the commercial 
fishing industry and on consumers across the country that enjoy eating 
healthy fish. In 2015, commercial and recreational saltwater fishing 
generated $208 billion in revenue, supported 1.6 million jobs, and 
supported the healthy dining habits of hundreds of millions of American 
consumers, billions worldwide.
  These economic benefits not only support recreational anglers and 
commercial fishing interests but entire towns and cities that rely on 
sports fishermen, recreational and commercial, as the entire hub of 
their economy.
  If the Empty Oceans Act were to pass, the long-term prospects of so 
many communities would be devastated. So I think it is important to 
have a thoughtful look at how we can continue the bipartisan tradition 
of building upon the progress of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, making 
corrections where we need to, but making sure that we put science first 
in our ocean stewardship, and making sure that we have a sustainable 
approach to recreational and commercial fishing.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman referenced a letter from the Seafood Harvesters of 
America. In their letter dated June 21 of 2018, this group claims that 
section 12 of the bill repeals a section of the MSA. There hasn't been 
a section 12 in this bill since November of 2017. There is no section 
12.
  The letter also claims that section 4 undermines rebuilding 
timelines. Section 4 of this bill simply states that all references in 
H.R. 200 are to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, unless otherwise stated; 
doesn't do anything like what is claimed.

  As the most egregious example, this group is so committed to opposing 
this

[[Page H6060]]

bill, no matter what changes we make, they reference a bill that, for 
all intents and purposes, no longer exists.
  The gentleman also said something about this bill being job-
destroying.
  Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about the destruction of jobs. When the 
present regime was running the fishery in the Gulf of Mexico for red 
snapper, they limited the number of days for fishing to such a small 
number that it destroyed hundreds, if not thousands of jobs across just 
my part of the Gulf Coast when people were no longer allowed to go out 
and go snapper fishing.
  Charter boat folks lost their jobs. People that sell ice or bait lost 
their jobs. It was the Federal bureaucracy that was destroying jobs.
  This bill will give us a commonsense regime that will restore jobs. 
So, far from being a job-destroying bill, this bill is going to create 
jobs.
  The gentleman also referred to a bottoms-up approach. I have been 
working on this issue for over 4 years, and I can tell you, the bottom, 
which is us recreational fishermen, we haven't been listened to one 
single time by the Federal bureaucracy. They closed their doors in our 
face.
  If you want to have a bottoms-up approach to this sort of thing, this 
bill supplies it. What we have got right now certainly doesn't do it.
  One of the most important things that is involved here is, who does 
the science? Do you let a bunch of Federal scientists far away from 
where the fisheries are make these decisions? Or do you let scientists 
that are in the areas where the fisheries exist, do you let them do the 
science?
  I am not talking about just any Tom, Dick, or Harry out there that 
calls himself a scientist. I am talking about Ph.D. scientists with 
accredited universities who know the fishery. This bill would allow 
that to happen, so that you could get good, accurate data, because they 
don't have it today.
  Let me go back to what I said initially on the red snapper issue.
  The Federal scientists were sampling for red snapper on sandy bottom. 
These are reef fish. You are not going to find reef fish on sandy 
bottom. You find them on reefs. And if you talk to real scientists, 
they will tell you there is no way you are going to get an accurate 
assessment of this fish stock if you are looking for them on sandy 
bottom. You have got to look for them on reefs.
  Let me tell you, there are over 170 groups that have signed on to 
being supportive of this bill. I do not have time to read all the names 
to you, but let me just read a few. The first one is the Congressional 
Sportsmen's Foundation. I go to their events up here, like many other 
Members of Congress. When I was at one just recently, there were 
hundreds of Members of Congress there from both parties. It couldn't 
get to be any bigger, and it couldn't get to be any more bipartisan.
  The Coastal Conservation Association, the Premier Recreational 
Anglers Association in America, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation 
Partnership, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, which the 
gentleman referred to as if they were opposed to it. They support the 
bill.
  The National Coalition for Fishing Communities and the Guy Harvey 
Ocean Foundation. This is a very broadly, deeply supported bill among 
people who are actually fishing.
  Now, it may not be supported by people who don't fish and who don't 
know anything about fishing; but for those of us who do fish, whether 
we are commercial fishermen or recreational fishermen, we like it.
  And it is time for Congress to understand that the waters of the 
United States of America do not belong to the Congress, and they do not 
belong to these Federal departments and agencies. They belong to the 
people of America, and the people of America have a right to fish in 
their waters. This bill will help restore that.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Carbajal).
  Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for yielding 
me time to voice my opposition to the rule which provides for 
consideration of H.R. 200.
  As it is currently written, H.R. 200 would undermine the conservation 
gains we have made over the last 2 decades under the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act, MSA, to prevent overfishing and encourage sustainable fisheries 
management.
  Before reforms were made to the MSA in 1996 and 2006, many fisheries 
lacked the sustainable quotas and requirements to rebuild depleted 
stocks. As a result, countless fisheries and fishermen around the 
country suffered the consequences.
  Since Congress changed the law to ensure science-based quotas 
applied, 44 fisheries around the country have now been restored to 
healthy levels. The number of stocks that remain overfished is at an 
all-time low.
  H.R. 200 would weaken core sustainability provisions of the MSA. This 
is a misguided attempt to provide recreational fishermen short-term 
access at the needless expense of both commercial fishermen and the 
long-term health of our fisheries. This hurts our coastal communities 
and businesses that depend on a robust fishing industry and its 
products.
  Additionally, H.R. 200 fails to sufficiently fund stock assessments 
to ensure effective and efficient management of our Nation's fisheries.
  I offered an amendment to authorize an additional $25 million for 
stock assessments. These funds would allow NOAA to conduct more fishery 
surveys, which would yield better data and can help reduce the buffers 
on fishing quotas.
  With this funding and research, fishermen can increase their catch 
rate, while decreasing the uncertainty in the sustainability of a 
fishery. Unfortunately, the majority at the Rules Committee decided not 
to make my amendment in order--let me repeat that--decided not to make 
my amendment in order, which would have allowed the House to debate 
this important issue.

  Mr. Speaker, as a Representative serving the vibrant Central Coast 
commercial fishing industry in California.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman from California an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. CARBAJAL. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. I want to make sure that I can 
assure him and everybody in this House this bill doesn't cut funding to 
anything. It's an authorization bill, and it reauthorizes the Magnuson-
Stevens Act with some changes, but those changes do not include a 
reduction in funding.
  But here is the thing about fishing that people that don't fish don't 
understand. Those of us that fish, we care about this fishery more than 
anybody else because if we overfish the stock, we don't get to fish 
anymore. No one has a greater interest in making sure that the species 
in our waters are maintained than those of us that fish, whether we are 
commercial fishermen or recreational fishermen. So there is no interest 
here that is being served to try to somehow harm our fishery.
  We believe, and it has actually been demonstrated to be true, that 
local communities, regional people, can better regulate, sample, bring 
science to the health of these fish stock than giving it to some 
bureaucrat in Washington that doesn't know one single thing about our 
fishery.
  We care. We care deeply, because it is a way of life for us, and the 
last thing we want to do is do anything that would harm these fish 
stock out there.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As we approach another election cycle, it is very important for this 
institution to do everything we can to ensure transparency and safety 
in our elections and the integrity of the election system itself.

                              {time}  1330

  Our democracy is being threatened by corporations, by special 
interests, and by foreign powers who are stripping away power from our 
people and our voters with dark money spending.
  Secret spending in our elections has exploded since the Supreme 
Court's 2010 Citizens United decision permitting super-PACs and certain 
tax-exempt groups to spend unlimited sums, including, in many cases, 
undisclosed funds. The result is unprecedented levels of spending and a 
midterm election expected to be the most expensive ever.

[[Page H6061]]

  Many of these groups don't even have to disclose their donors, 
allowing wealthy corporations and individuals and illicit foreign 
influencers to secretly spend unlimited dark money.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Cicilline's 
legislation, H.R. 6239, the DISCLOSE Act, which I am proud to be a 
cosponsor of. This bicameral bill would require organizations spending 
money in Federal elections to disclose their donors and guard against 
hidden foreign interference in our democracy.
  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 Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Cicilline) to discuss our proposal.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress is broken. Each day, more and more Americans 
are losing faith that their government actually works for them. More 
than 80 percent of Americans say they can't trust Washington to do what 
is right for them. More than two-thirds feel like our democracy is 
getting less responsive under Republican control.
  And they know what is going on here. They know they are caught in a 
system that is rigged against them. Their voices are ignored. Their 
concerns are dismissed. They don't even get a seat at the table.
  The Republicans who control this Chamber aren't going to fix it. They 
have given away all the seats at the table to corporate special 
interests, to billionaires, to the big banks, the big pharmaceutical 
companies, and that is why the interests of working people are not 
being protected. My Republican friends are advancing the interests of 
powerful special interests that fund their campaigns.
  The corruption of our political system in this way has become 
business as usual here in Washington. In this case, business as usual 
means billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy and well-
connected Republican campaign donors. It means endless attacks on 
workers' rights and consumer protections, and it means trying to deny 
the right to vote to millions of eligible citizens while, at the same 
time, letting corporations spend as much as it takes to keep 
Republicans in power.
  Business as usual for Republicans is a raw deal for the rest of us, 
and the American people are sick and tired of the raw deal that they 
have been getting. Democrats know that. We share their frustration. We 
know that Congress can do better. We know that we need to clean up 
Washington and get a better deal for our democracy.
  Democrats are committed to delivering real reforms to our political 
system that will restore government by and for the people of this great 
country, and that starts with fixing the way campaigns are run in 
America. We need to break the stranglehold that secret corporate 
spending has on our elections, and we have a chance to do it right now.
  If we defeat the previous question, we will have a chance to vote on 
the DISCLOSE Act, one of the key elements of delivering a better deal 
for our democracy.
  The DISCLOSE Act, which I have introduced, along with 162 cosponsors 
in this Chamber, will shine a light on the unlimited secret corporate 
spending that has flooded American elections in recent years.
  The DISCLOSE Act is simple. It requires that organizations that spend 
money in Federal elections have to disclose their donors. It closes one 
of the biggest loopholes that the Citizens United ruling opened, 
namely, that corporations, billionaires, and even foreign governments 
can secretly funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into 501(c)(4)s in 
order to covertly influence our campaigns.
  This is a huge problem. From 2004 to 2016, secret political spending 
in our Presidential elections increased by over 3,000 percent. Special 
counsel Robert Mueller is even reportedly investigating right now 
whether Vladimir Putin's regime in Russia secretly funneled money 
through the NRA to help elect Donald Trump.
  And closer to home for all of us, just a few weeks ago, Speaker 
Ryan's political fundraising group, the American Action Network, 
reported receiving a single $24.6 million contribution from an 
anonymous donor. I don't know who gave the American Action Network that 
money. You don't know who gave them that money. But I have a feeling 
that whoever did is expecting something in return.
  It is no secret that the American people have lost faith in this 
institution and in their government. They look to Washington and they 
see a ruling party that will do whatever it takes to help their friends 
on Wall Street get ahead, but they won't lift a finger for folks who 
are struggling to get by.
  It doesn't have to be this way. We can restore the faith that has 
been lost in this institution and in our government. We can build a 
government that is worthy of the people we serve. We can end the rule 
of big money and begin a new era where working people get all the seats 
at the table.
  If we want to do that, the first thing we need to do is to make sure 
that political spending happens out in the open and not in total 
secret.
  Let's defeat the previous question. Let's have a real debate about 
fixing what is wrong in Washington, and start by passing the DISCLOSE 
Act to shine some light on dark money in our politics.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to talk about the fisheries 
of America. If the folks on the other side of the aisle want to address 
the issue that they just referenced, then I am sure they could 
foreswear taking any corporate contributions, any anonymous 
contributions to their accounts for themselves. So they could lead by 
their example, and I look forward to seeing them do that.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today to talk about the fisheries of 
America, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, when we defeat the previous question, I will offer Mr. 
Cicilline's amendment for the DISCLOSE Act. That is why we are talking 
about that bill today.
  The DISCLOSE Act is an alternative to this job-destroying bill and 
anticonsumer bill that we have before us. So I would encourage my 
colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can shine a light on 
the dark money that continues to pervade and pollute and distort our 
political system. I would hope that that is something we can agree on.
  I hope my Republican and Democratic friends will vote to defeat the 
previous question because it doesn't matter what one's ideology is. 
What matters is there should be transparency in money in politics, and 
that is a basic tenet that I hope conservatives and liberals and 
moderates can agree on, and we can immediately move to that. When we 
defeat the previous question, I will offer that amendment based on the 
bill by Mr. Cicilline, which I am honored to be a cosponsor of.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the third attempt to undermine the provisions of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act that protects jobs and uses science in 
decisionmaking with regard to managing our ocean resources. These 
attempts failed every time, and the biggest reason they failed is the 
framework of Magnuson is working.
  We talked about the increase in boat sales. We talked about the 
increase in jobs. We talked about the benefit to consumers. I am sure 
there is some fine tuning to do, but it is not time to push the reset 
button and start over down a very dangerous path that would destroy 
jobs and the entire economies of many of our local communities.
  This act has been essential, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in restoring 
our depleted fishing populations, helping communities devastated by 
overfishing, getting them back in balance. Science-based reforms over 
the last two decades have made our fisheries more profitable and 
rebuilt overfished stocks and have been of great benefit to consumers. 
These reforms have directly benefited recreational fishing interests, 
and that is reinforced by their own data of the industry.

[[Page H6062]]

  So if we continue down the path of sustainable fisheries management, 
commercial and recreational fishermen will see even greater financial 
gains and support in the future. In fact, NOAA estimates that fully 
rebuilt fisheries would add $31 billion to our economy and create 
500,000 new jobs.
  We need a benchmark and a path to get there, not a pathway to the 
past of unsustainable practices and job destruction, which this bill 
does.
  These potential jobs and revenues--$31 billion, 500,000 jobs--would 
support thousands of coastal communities throughout America, consumers 
across our country and the world, far outweighing any short-term 
benefit from an empty oceans act.
  Only through science-based fisheries management can coastal towns and 
cities reap enormous environmental benefits. So, instead of throwing it 
away, we should build upon the proven sustainable fisheries management 
practices of Magnuson-Stevens in a bipartisan way. Unfortunately, this 
bill halts decades of progress, ends the science-based approach.
  Rather than approving harmful and damaging measures to weaken our 
economy and harm the environment, let's start again and begin a true 
bipartisan reauthorization, as this Congress did in 1996, as this 
Congress did in 2006, to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can move 
forward with our discussion of requiring that donations into political 
campaigns and allied groups have to be disclosed and to also vote 
``no'' on the rule so that we begin work on a bipartisan 
reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens, building upon the tradition of 
this institution and putting science in the front.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. There are 
bipartisan cosponsors to this bill. This is a bipartisan bill.
  What is this bill really about? It is about freedom. It is about the 
freedom of the American people to be able to use their own waters, to 
fish in their own waters, something the American people have done since 
before we were a nation.
  There is a really great book that just came out that won the Pulitzer 
Prize called ``The Gulf,'' about the Gulf of Mexico. It recounts the 
history of our area and how long we have been fishing in the Gulf of 
Mexico and what it has meant for generations upon generations of both 
commercial and recreational fishermen.
  I have commercial fisherpeople in my family, and they are wonderful 
people, have a great business. It is important to them and it is their 
way of life. We need to make sure we do everything to preserve that way 
of life.
  I am a recreational fisherman, and we have been doing it in my family 
for generations, and I want to preserve that as well.
  My grandfather was one of the founders of the Alabama Deep Sea 
Fishing Rodeo, one of the oldest and largest fishing tournaments in the 
United States of America. It is really great to see, summer after 
summer, generations of people who have been fishing in that tournament, 
literally for three or four or five generations, come down there on 
Dauphin Island and bring the fish that they catch, so proud of what 
they have done.

  And what have they just done? They have gone out in their own boat at 
their own expense, spent a day in the open air on a beautiful summer 
day, or maybe 2 or 3 days, and got some time to spend time together as 
a family, with friends, and do something Americans have been able to do 
without the Federal Government trying to tell them how to do it for a 
couple, 300 years.
  It is time for us to restore back to the American people the control 
of their waters. That is what this bill does. Mr. Speaker, I again urge 
my colleagues to support H. Res. 965 and the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

            An Amendment to H. Res. 965 Offered by Mr. Polis

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     6239) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 
     provide for additional disclosure requirements for 
     corporations, labor organizations, Super PACs and other 
     entities, 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 among and controlled by the respective chairs and 
     ranking minority members of the Committees on House 
     Administration, Ways and Means, Financial Services, and 
     Oversight and Government Reform. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 6239.
                                  ____


        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. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.

[[Page H6063]]

  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.
  Mr. POLIS. 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:
  Adoption of the resolution, if ordered;
  Ordering the previous question on House Resolution 985; and
  Adoption of House Resolution 985, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 186, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 316]

                               YEAS--225

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cloud
     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
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     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
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     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
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--186

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     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
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Amodei
     Blum
     Cheney
     Costa
     Ellison
     Gallagher
     Hanabusa
     Harper
     Jenkins (KS)
     Messer
     Napolitano
     Perlmutter
     Rush
     Shuster
     Speier
     Walz
     Weber (TX)

                              {time}  1408

  Messrs. CAPUANO and DeFAZIO changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. BILIRAKIS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. POLIS. 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 227, 
noes 184, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 317]

                               AYES--227

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cloud
     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
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     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
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     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
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

[[Page H6064]]


  


                               NOES--184

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     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)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Blum
     Cheney
     Costa
     Ellison
     Gallagher
     Hanabusa
     Harper
     Jenkins (KS)
     Messer
     Napolitano
     Perlmutter
     Rush
     Scott, David
     Shuster
     Speier
     Walz
     Weber (TX)

                              {time}  1418

  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.

                          ____________________