[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 120 (Tuesday, July 17, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H6274-H6282]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 996, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 
       ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 996 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 996

       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 consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 6147) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. An 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 115-81 shall be considered as 
     adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill 
     for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute 
     rule and shall be considered as read. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill, as amended, for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 or clause 5(a) of rule XXI are waived except as 
     follows: beginning with the colon on page 251, line 5, 
     through ``2012'' on page 251, line 8. Where points of order 
     are waived against part of a paragraph, points of order 
     against a provision in another part of such paragraph may be 
     made only against such provision and not against the entire 
     paragraph. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, 
     shall be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution and pro forma 
     amendments described in section 2 of this resolution. Each 
     further amendment printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn 
     by the proponent at any time before action thereon, shall not 
     be subject to amendment except as provided by section 2 of 
     this resolution, and shall not be subject to a demand for 
     division of the question in the House or in the Committee of 
     the Whole. All points of order against such further 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill, as amended, to the House with such further 
     amendments as may have been

[[Page H6275]]

     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.  During consideration of H.R. 6147 for amendment, 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 
     10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of 
     debate.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), my good friend, 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. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported 
a rule for consideration of H.R. 6147, the Department of Interior, 
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2019, which 
also includes the Financial Services and General Government 
Appropriations Act of 2019.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and the ranking member on the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, the appropriations package in front of us is the third 
installment of the House's effort to pass all 12 appropriations bills 
on the floor for fiscal year 2019. We have previously passed 
appropriations bills covering Energy and Water, Military Construction, 
Veterans Affairs, Legislative Branch, and Defense.
  Today we turn to the work of the Appropriations Committee 
Subcommittees on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies and 
Financial Services and General Government.
  Once the House finishes its work for the week, we will have passed 6 
of the 12 appropriations bills across the floor.
  Overall, the package covers $58.65 billion in spending. Of those 
funds, $35.25 billion are allocated to the Interior bill and $23.4 
billion to the Financial Services bill, which is equal to the enacted 
level for fiscal year 2018 for both of these bills. The package 
represents many months of work by the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, as I have so often said when discussing appropriations 
bills, today's package represents the most fundamental duty of 
Congress, to fund the government and keep it open each year to continue 
to provide our constituents with the services they need and deserve. 
But, importantly, this package also fulfills an additional duty of 
Congress to the American people: its fiscally prudent stewardship of 
the taxpayers' hard-earned money and to ensure that we appropriately 
prioritize where and how to spend taxpayer dollars in the most 
efficient manner.
  Mr. Speaker, the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill funds 
critical programs at the Department of the Interior, the Environmental 
Protection Agency, and other crucial areas. Among the areas of greatest 
importance, the bill includes $3.9 billion for the Department of the 
Interior and the U.S. Forest Service to fight wildfires. It includes 
$500 million for payments in lieu of taxes to help local governments, 
and it provides $2.6 billion for the Clean Water and Drinking Water 
State Revolving Loan Fund.

                              {time}  1230

  It funds the National Park Service at $3.25 billion, an increase of 
$53 million over fiscal year 2018. Of great import, not only to my home 
State of Oklahoma but to Native Americans all across the country, the 
bill honors our treaties and trust agreements by providing $5.9 billion 
for the Indian Health Service and $3.1 billion for the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs and Indian Education.
  The bill also fulfills an additional commitment to the American 
people by including provisions to rein in the runaway regulatory 
agendas of parts of the Federal Government. It reduces the EPA's 
regulatory programs by $228 million. It also fully repeals the 
economically damaging waters of the United States rule and includes 
various prohibitions preventing the EPA from overregulating 
agricultural operations and exempting livestock producers from EPA 
greenhouse gas requirements.
  The Financial Services and General Government portion of this bill 
provides $23.4 billion across several important accounts. It provides 
$7.7 billion for the operation of the Federal court system. The bill 
also provides funding to help combat the opioid crisis, including $415 
million for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, including $280 
million for high-intensity drug trafficking areas and $118 million for 
other Federal drug control programs.
  It encourages responsible spending at the Internal Revenue Service by 
appropriating $11.6 billion for IRS activities, an increase of $186 
million over fiscal year 2018, and continues stringent oversight and 
protections of taxpayer dollars that have been included in recent 
years.
  The bill provides $1.66 billion for the Securities and Exchange 
Commission and will help grow the economy by providing $737 million, or 
full funding, in capital to various Small Business Administration loan 
programs. Perhaps most importantly, this bill includes provisions that 
will finally bring the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under 
congressional oversight.
  Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, when the CFPB was created in the 
original Dodd-Frank Act, the new agency was allowed to operate without 
congressional oversight because it did not receive appropriations. 
Consequently, since its inception, unelected bureaucrats at the CFPB 
have been allowed to operate entirely without congressional 
supervision. Today's bill will remedy that and will ensure that the 
CFPB falls under congressional authority, oversight, and supervision 
once and for all.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to support this rule and 
the underlying bill. The package before us represents a fulfillment of 
our most important responsibility as Members of Congress and provides 
appropriate funding in two divisions: Interior and Environment, and 
Financial Services and General Government. I applaud my colleagues on 
the Appropriations Committee for their months of work in making this 
bill a reality and cheer their efforts on moving forward to completion 
of the fiscal year 2019 appropriations process.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying 
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the measures included here aren't just bad, they are 
dangerous. Take the Interior Appropriations bill. It would put the 
health and safety of Americans at risk by slashing funding to address 
climate change and enforce environmental safeguards.
  The EPA, the agency tasked with fighting carbon emissions, is cut by 
$100 million. That is especially ironic since the majority was 
completely unwilling to rein in the wasteful spending by its former 
Administrator, Scott Pruitt. This is someone who spent $43,000 on a 
soundproof phone booth, but the majority was silent.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund is cut by $65 million. That is 
after Republicans cut it by a third in the last fiscal year. As many of 
my colleagues know, I have been a champion of the LWCF, especially the 
stateside grant program where States provide a 50 percent match to 
grants that create more recreational and green open spaces in our 
districts. The people in communities in nearly every congressional 
district in the country have benefitted from these grants. We should be 
increasing, not cutting, LWCF.
  There is even language in the bill that would repeal a rule designed 
to protect our wetlands and waterways. State revolving funds were cut 
by $300 million, a $150 million cut to clean drinking water and a $150 
million cut to clean water projects like water treatment and sewage 
programs.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people rely on Congress to make sure that 
the

[[Page H6276]]

water they drink is clean. What is going on with this bill?
  As always, Republicans have again attached several poison pill 
provisions that undermine the health and safety of our communities and 
the environment. Every year--every year--provisions like these weigh 
down this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, when will my Republican friends realize that harmful 
provisions like this are why the bill has to become law? I am 
especially outraged to see what the majority has done with the 
Financial Services Appropriations bill, especially after what we saw on 
Friday. That is when some of our worst fears were confirmed.
  As part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, Deputy 
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced charges against 12 Russian 
military intelligence officers. They were accused of hacking the 
Democratic National Committee, hacking Hillary Clinton's Presidential 
campaign, and hacking the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. 
The website of a State electoral board was also hacked. Voter 
information was stolen. Even the vendor of voting equipment was 
targeted for a cyber attack. And those individuals involved in 
administering elections were also targeted.

  These charges are proof that our Nation, that our very democracy, is 
under attack. No troops were sent into combat. Not a single gun was 
fired. Instead, an adversary turned the internet into a battlefield. 
That is the new face of warfare in the 21st century.
  Although the methods were different, this Congress should be 
responding the way we always have, by putting partisanship aside and 
putting our country first by doing whatever it takes to ensure we are 
not left vulnerable again.
  But, Mr. Speaker, how is this majority responding? By using the 
Financial Services Appropriations bill to zero out funding for grants 
that help protect our election systems from cyber hacking. That is a 
cut of $380 million compared to what Congress enacted in fiscal year 
2018. The wolf is at the door, and my Republican colleagues are 
inviting it inside for dinner. This is insane.
  The President tweeted, shortly after the election: ``Unless you catch 
`hackers' in the act, it is very hard to determine who was doing the 
hacking.''
  Well, Mr. Speaker, it may be hard, but it is not impossible, because 
we now have a 29-page indictment from President Trump's own Justice 
Department providing the roadmap. The indictment goes into 
extraordinary detail outlining how Russia successfully hacked into our 
election systems, how candidates and committees were successfully 
targeted--not by China or somebody sitting on their bed who weighs 400 
pounds, as the President suggested, but by Russia, by Vladimir Putin.
  It is mind-boggling that even after this indictment, after Russia's 
meddling was laid bare, the President did not stand up to Putin. He 
held a summit with him instead. He even told CBS News, in an interview 
before his sit down, that he ``hadn't thought'' about raising the issue 
with Putin during their talk.
  It gets worse, Mr. Speaker. British investigators believe that 
current and former agents of the same Russian military intelligence 
service accused of disrupting our 2016 elections are also likely 
responsible for the nerve agent attack on a former Russian spy and his 
daughter in Salisbury, England, earlier this year.
  Sadly, it is no surprise that the President didn't stand up to Putin. 
He never does. When President Trump was asked whether he was a friend 
or a foe, he recently called Putin a competitor instead, like this was 
all some kind of real estate deal.
  A President who calls the free press, journalists in the United 
States, ``the enemy of the American people'' time and time again is 
unwilling to call the leader of Russia a foe or even an adversary. It 
is disturbing.
  What kind of hold does Vladimir Putin have on this President, Mr. 
Speaker? So much so that the President basically blamed the United 
States for much of the tensions between the two countries.
  The President even deflected when asked whether he trusts the 
American intelligence community or Putin.
  The President may be satisfied by what he called Putin's strong and 
powerful denial of election interference, but I am not, Mr. Speaker. I 
am disgusted.
  It is clear that an effort to defend our democracy will have to be 
led by Congress, because it is not coming from the White House. But we 
are not leading when we make it easier for an adversary like Russia to 
attack us again. That is retreating.
  I remember learning about the separation of powers in school, how the 
legislative branch is a separate but equal branch of government. The 
Founders designed it that way so we could provide a check on a 
President.
  Mr. Speaker, when are the Republicans in Congress going to provide a 
check on President Trump? He is cozying up to Putin instead of holding 
him accountable for hacking our election.
  As Senator Schumer suggested, we should be increasing sanctions on 
the Russians. The Republican majority should be joining us, demanding 
the President's national security team that accompanied him to Helsinki 
testify before Congress, detailing what they know.
  It is past time that Republicans end their attacks on the Department 
of Justice, on the FBI, and on the special counsel. Already, 32 people 
and three companies have been either indicted or pleaded guilty under 
Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. Now, we will see where else it 
leads, but there is already evidence of clear wrongdoing.
  He should be able to finish his work without any interference. The 
majority should move a bill from Representative Nadler to the floor 
immediately, so we can protect the special counsel's investigation from 
the whims of this President.
  President Trump has shown he is willing to fire his FBI Director. Mr. 
Speaker, are the Republicans really going to stand by and make it 
possible for him to fire Robert Mueller, too?
  This majority must also demand the President insist that the 12 
Russians named in Friday's indictment are sent to the United States to 
stand trial. The President should have already done this when he met 
with Putin, but, apparently, it was an afterthought. Maybe he was too 
busy admiring the strongman to stand up for his country's interests.
  I wish I were optimistic that Republicans would take these 
commonsense steps to protect our country, but I am not, not after what 
we saw in the Rules Committee last night. The majority failed to make 
in order an amendment by Representative Quigley. It was germane. But 
they failed to make in order his amendment that would provide $380 
million to help States protect election systems from cyber hacking. 
This funding should not have been zeroed out in the first place.
  Do my Republican friends see what is happening? Is anybody paying 
attention over there? Russia meddled in our election, and your response 
is to zero out funding for an election security assistance program. 
Then, when we pointed it out and tried to put the money back, you 
blocked the amendment. You won't even allow us to debate the program. 
That is the smallest step that they could have taken. Instead, we can't 
even have a debate on the floor.

  Apparently, the Republicans are afraid of having a fair fight about 
protecting our democracy, and it is indefensible. If the President 
isn't willing to do more to prevent Putin from doing it again, then 
this Congress has an obligation to act, not gut the accounts that 
provide for election security.
  We can start standing up by voting against this rule and the 
underlying legislation. It doesn't do nearly enough to protect our 
Nation against hostile foreign powers hell-bent on attacking our 
democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and 
then I will turn and yield time to my friend from Ohio.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to quickly respond to my friend's concern 
about the Election Assistance Commission funds.
  As I am sure he is aware, that was the last installment last year, 
this fiscal year, of a $365 billion authorization that was actually 
done back in 2002. Currently, 39 percent of those funds for this year 
are still available to the

[[Page H6277]]

States. Actually, 19 States have yet to submit any sort of request, and 
the legislation itself has not been reauthorized. If the authorizing 
people reauthorize it, I am sure we will revisit this matter.
  It also worth noting that anything added will be available only from 
October 1, and the election is 5 weeks after that. So the idea that we 
are going to do something in that period of time, I think, is a bit of 
a red herring.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Gibbs), my good friend from the Seventh District.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the 
underlying legislation that provides funding for programs vital to the 
environmental and economic health of my home State of Ohio and the 
entire Great Lakes region. This appropriations bill includes full 
funding, $300 million, for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.

                              {time}  1245

  The GLRI is an important program focusing on critical environmental 
restoration projects, such as improving water quality, fighting 
invasive species, and repairing native habitats for wildlife.
  The Great Lakes region supports over $200 billion in economic 
activity and is the world's largest source of fresh water. Restoring 
and preserving the Great Lakes is good for our environment and good for 
the thousands of Ohioans whose livelihoods depend on a clean Lake Erie.
  Additionally, the bill repeals the burdensome Obama-era waters of the 
United States rule, a bureaucratic overreach that expands EPA 
jurisdiction beyond congressional intent and in contradiction of court 
rulings.
  When the Obama administration announced this rule, I heard from 
farmers, ranchers, local and State governments, homeowners, and private 
property rights advocates. All agreed the Obama administration went too 
far, creating confusion and uncertainty about what would and would not 
fall under EPA jurisdiction. By repealing the flawed 2015 WOTUS rule, 
we are committing to work with State environmental agencies as partners 
in protecting our Nation's natural resources, rather than as 
adversaries.
  Finally, this appropriations bill maintains funding for the Clean 
Water State Revolving Fund, a valuable tool for State and local 
agencies to finance projects to ensure our municipalities have access 
to clean and affordable water.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and 
passage of the legislation to keep the Great Lakes healthy and continue 
to improve our Nation's water quality.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my good friend from Oklahoma who I 
think said that 39 percent of the funds are still left in the Election 
Assistance Commission account. Well, we still have 5 months left in 
this year, and does anybody here really believe that these attacks are 
going to stop? And shouldn't we have money in the pipeline? Shouldn't 
we be prepared not just for this election, but for the election after 
that?
  This is about protecting our democracy, and I don't understand why 
this is controversial. But no matter what you think about Mr. Quigley's 
amendment, it was germane. It was relevant to this bill. It should have 
been brought up, and we should debate it. All we are asking for is a 
fair fight.
  We are deeply concerned about what is happening to our country, and 
we are especially concerned in the aftermath of President Trump's 
disastrous meeting with Vladimir Putin.
  Mr. Speaker, now is the time for Congress to stand unified with the 
unanimous assessment of our intelligence community.
  I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If we do, I am 
going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative 
Engel's resolution, H. Res. 999, which follows word for word 
yesterday's statement by Speaker Ryan affirming Russia's attacks on our 
democracy.
  This is the second time today that I am going to give my Republican 
friends a chance to go on the Record and agree with the words of the 
Republican Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan.
  Defending our democracy shouldn't be controversial. Agreeing with the 
Republican Speaker that ``the United States must be focused on holding 
Russia accountable'' should not be controversial. I would say to my 
friends, take yes for an answer.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Engel) to discuss our proposal.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for 
yielding to me, and I want to strongly identify with his remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, I led the Foreign Affairs Committee Democrats last week 
urging President Trump to cancel his meeting with Vladimir Putin 
because I knew this was going to turn out badly, but, frankly, I didn't 
know how bad it would be. It turns out President Trump embarrassed 
himself and disgraced our Nation.
  Standing on foreign soil, the President of the United States 
questioned America's intelligence community; he attacked America's law 
enforcement with bizarre conspiracy theories; he lobbed petty political 
insults; and he did it all while standing next to America's chief 
rival, Vladimir Putin.
  When faced head-on with the question, ``Who do you believe?'' 
President Trump sided with Putin and affirmed Putin's brazen lies. This 
is the tyrant who directed attacks on America's democracy in an effort 
to elect Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton. And, as Director of 
National Intelligence Dan Coats said, these attacks are still ongoing.
  As we all know, Putin is a ruthless leader who seeks to tear down our 
alliances, undermine Western unity, and destroy democracy. With the 
eyes of the world on them, it is plain that the President of the United 
States is now Putin's willing accomplice, Putin's poodle. It is 
outrageous; it is disgusting; it is dangerous; and it has been met with 
near universal condemnation.
  Here is what Speaker Ryan said just yesterday, and I agree with the 
Speaker:

       There is no question that Russia interfered in our election 
     and continues attempts to undermine democracy here and around 
     the world. The President needs to understand that Russia is 
     not our ally. There is no moral equivalency between the 
     United States and Russia, which remains hostile to our most 
     basic values and ideals, and that Russia must be held 
     accountable.

  That is what our Republican Speaker said, and I agree with him.
  I have introduced this resolution so that the entire House can go on 
record agreeing with the Speaker, affirming that we stand with the 
Speaker. I deeply regret that a member of the Speaker's own party just 
blocked the House from speaking with one voice and taking up this 
resolution by unanimous consent.
  We must reject the President's capitulation to Putin; we must stand 
up for American leadership on the global stage; and we must demand that 
this administration treat Russia like the enemy it is.
  How can you treat Putin better than U.S. intelligence? It just 
boggles my mind.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration 
of the resolution I have just introduced, which is H. Res. 999.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise that all time has 
been yielded for the purpose of debate only.
  Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for purposes of this unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I am reiterating my earlier announcement that 
all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only, and I will not 
yield for any other purpose.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield; 
therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to defeat the previous 
question.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H6278]]

  

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, Federal administrative law judges, commonly known as 
ALJs, decide over 1 million cases a year, covering everything from 
appeals of Social Security Disability and Medicare claims to disputes 
over black lung benefits and securities law violations. These are cases 
that can touch virtually all of our constituents.
  On July 10, President Trump issued an executive order that will 
undermine the quality and independence of ALJs and the impartiality of 
the decisions they render. It does so by changing the hiring standards 
for judges.
  The current standards guarantee that ALJs are fully qualified to 
serve. The executive order will replace those standards with a far more 
lenient system that would allow ALJs to be hired based on ideology or 
cronyism rather than experience and competence.
  This executive order, titled, ``Exempting Administrative Law Judges 
from the Competitive Service'' will open the door for the 
politicization of a profession that plays a defining role in the lives 
of millions of American families.
  Representatives Elijah Cummings,  David Cicilline,  John Larson, and 
I filed an amendment to defund the executive order and preserve the 
impartiality, independence, and competence of administrative law 
judges. Unfortunately, the majority on the Rules Committee has refused 
to allow Members of Congress to vote on or even debate our amendment.
  The longstanding hiring standards for ALJs were designed to guarantee 
the legitimacy of their decisions. ALJs were required to have 7 years 
of trial-level experience as an attorney and successfully complete a 
six-part examination. To insulate judicial decisionmaking from agency 
political pressure, the examination was conducted by the Office of 
Personnel Management, OPM, which maintained a list of the highest 
scoring applicants from which agencies can then select their 
candidates.
  All of that was jettisoned by the President's executive order, which 
removes ALJs from the competitive service. Now the only requirements 
are that an ALJ must be a lawyer in good standing.
  This executive order is strongly opposed by a broad spectrum of 
organizations. The Federal Administrative Law Judge Conference, a 
nonpartisan, voluntary professional association, warns, ``now, any 
agency that wants to hire an ALJ needs no approval from OPM and can 
hire any attorney regardless of skill or experience. The new 
appointment process will not afford members of the public the due 
process and fair hearings they deserve. Instead, it will give agency 
insiders and political loyalists a job for which they may not be 
qualified but for which they will feel indebted.''
  The Association of Administrative Law Judges, which represents over 
1,600 ALJs at the Social Security Administration, states that the 
President's order ``will politicize our courts, lead to cronyism, and 
replace independent and impartial adjudicators with those who do the 
bidding of political appointees.''
  The American Association for Justice writes: ``It is important for 
all cases overseen by ALJs to have a neutral ALJ handling the case, not 
someone who may be beholden to a particular political party, hostile to 
a particular agency or program, or otherwise politically motivated in 
their decisionmaking.''
  The American Bar Association writes: ``By giving agency heads sole 
discretion to hire ALJs who will be making determinations affirming or 
overturning decisions rendered by that agency, the executive order has 
the potential to politicize the appointment process and interfere with 
the decisional independence of ALJs.''
  The American Bar Association says further that: ``Nothing less than 
the integrity of the administrative judiciary is at issue here. That is 
why it is critical that Members of Congress have an opportunity to 
participate in the debate and help formulate a solution. The first step 
is to halt implementation of the executive order.''
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the letters from those four 
organizations.

                             American Association for Justice,

                                                    July 13, 2018.
     Hon. Members of the House,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Member of Congress: The American Association for 
     Justice strongly opposes the Trump Administration's recent 
     executive order regarding the hiring and role of federal 
     Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). An impartial judiciary is 
     central to the strength of our justice system, and ALJs 
     should not be involved in the political process. The ALJ 
     executive order threatens the American people's right to a 
     neutral arbiter and right to due process.
       It is vital that ALJs be independent and impartial. This 
     executive order eliminates the process of selecting ALJs 
     based on their qualifications, and instead allows these 
     positions to be filled by political appointees without any 
     merit-based procedure. Administrative proceedings should 
     continue to be overseen and adjudicated by ALJs who are 
     qualified, such as attorneys with at least seven years of 
     litigation experience and who are vetted by the Office of 
     Personnel Management, as was the prior process. The 
     appointment of ALJs with no experience, who can gain 
     appointment solely due to their financial contributions or 
     other political incentives so long as they possess a bar 
     license, could result in unfair, biased rulings for millions 
     of Americans.
       The executive order will have a devastating effect on a 
     vast array of cases, including cases before the Social 
     Security Administration, Department of Labor, National Labor 
     Relations Board, and Department of Health and Human Services. 
     There are about 2,000 ALJs that decide over a million cases 
     each year. Approximately 1,600 of those ALJs hear Social 
     Security disability cases and render almost 700,000 decisions 
     each year at the hearing level. It is important for all cases 
     overseen by ALJs to have a neutral ALJ handling the case, not 
     someone who may be beholden to a particular political party, 
     hostile to a particular agency or program, or otherwise 
     politically motivated in their decision-making. AAJ is 
     especially concerned about bias against claimants seeking 
     Social Security disability benefits.
       We urge you to oppose this executive order and to support 
     Amendment #55, sponsored by Reps. Scott (VA), Cummings, 
     Cicilline and Larson (CT), to Division B of Rules Committee 
     Print 115-81 (H.R. 6147). We greatly appreciate your support 
     in protecting the American people's right to due process.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Linda Lipsen,
     CEO, American Association for Justice.
                                  ____


 [News Release From the Association of Administrative Law Judges, July 
                               12, 2018]

    Statement by Hon. Marilyn Zahm, President of the Association of 
  Administrative Law Judges (AALJ) on White House Executive Order on 
                       Administrative Law Judges

       President Trump's executive order this week regarding the 
     hiring and role of federal administrative law judges should 
     concern anyone who has a Social Security Card. This is an 
     assault on due process for the American people who have a 
     right to a neutral arbiter. Currently, 1,600 of the roughly 
     2,000 federal ALJs hear Social Security disability cases. The 
     president's order calls for replacing the current merit 
     system used to hire judges with a court-packing plan that 
     will allow agency heads to hand pick judges who hear cases at 
     the Social Security Administration and dozens of other 
     federal agencies. This change will politicize our courts, 
     lead to cronyism and replace independent and impartial 
     adjudicators with those who do the bidding of political 
     appointees. This is a decision that should be reversed. If 
     allowed to go forward it would be the equivalent of placing a 
     thumb on the scale of justice.
                                  ____



                                     American Bar Association,

                                       Chicago, IL, July 16, 2018.
     Hon. Pete Sessions,
     Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. James McGovern,
     Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Sessions and Ranking Member McGovern: On 
     behalf of the American Bar Association and its over 400,000 
     members nationwide, I write to urge you to support 
     consideration of Representative Scott's proposed amendment to 
     Division B of Rules Committee Print 115-81 during floor 
     consideration of H.R. 6147. The amendment would prohibit the 
     use of funds by the Office of Personnel Management or any 
     other executive branch agency for the development, 
     promulgation, modification, or implementation of the July 10, 
     2018, Executive Order Excepting Administrative Law Judges 
     from Competitive Service.
       The Executive Order (EO) is an ill-considered and legally 
     vulnerable response to the Supreme Court ruling in Lucia et 
     al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, which held that 
     SEC Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) are considered 
     ``inferior officers of the United States'' and therefore 
     require appointment consistent with the Appointments Clause 
     of the United States Constitution.
       The EO, which eliminates the nationwide, uniform, 
     competitive selection exam process

[[Page H6279]]

     and weakens existing qualifications standards, gives each 
     agency head the unfettered authority to hire ALJs based on 
     criteria established by the agency. In fact, the EO 
     specifically states that it gives agencies greater discretion 
     to assess critical qualities, including the applicant's 
     ``ability to meet the particular needs of the agency,'' which 
     are, of course, left entirely to the agency to define.
       There is no doubt that changes to the current selection and 
     appointment process for ALJs are required by Lucia, but we 
     believe that those changes should be instituted after there 
     has been an opportunity for Congress and the public to engage 
     in an open and deliberative process that considers possible 
     options for curing the constitutional defects in the current 
     process. We hope this includes an examination of ways to 
     assure that safeguards remain in place that respect the 
     unique adjudicative role of ALJs and retain public confidence 
     in the system. If adopted, the Scott amendment, by halting 
     implementation of the EO, would allow congressional and 
     public engagement on this important issue.
       A fair and impartial administrative judiciary is 
     indispensable to our system of justice. Vast numbers of 
     Americans are involved in administrative adjudicative 
     proceedings every day, and the decisions rendered by ALJs in 
     these proceedings often affect their lives in profound ways.
       By giving agency heads sole discretion to hire ALJs who 
     will be making determinations affirming or overturning 
     decisions rendered by that agency, the EO has the potential 
     to politicize the appointment process and interfere with the 
     decisional independence of ALJs.
       Nothing less than the integrity of the administrative 
     judiciary is at issue here. That is why it is critical that 
     Members of Congress have an opportunity to participate in the 
     debate and help formulate a solution. The first step is to 
     halt implementation of the EO.
       We therefore urge you to allow the House to vote on the 
     Scott amendment when it deliberates on H.R. 6147.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Hilarie Bass,
     President.
                                  ____


 [From the Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference, July 11, 2018]

   Executive Order on Administrative Law Judges Lowers Standards and 
                          Reduces Independence

       Washington, DC.--On July 10, 2018, President Donald J. 
     Trump issued an executive order eliminating the competitive 
     process to select nonpartisan Administrative Law Judges 
     (ALJs) based on qualifications demonstrated through courtroom 
     experience and an examination process. These positions may 
     now be filled by inexperienced political appointees.
       Nearly two thousand ALJs decide over a million cases each 
     year. Americans are far more likely during their lifetime to 
     encounter a federal ALJ than any other type of judge.
       Since 1947, administrative proceedings, under the 
     Administrative Procedure Act (APA), have been objectively 
     overseen by presidents from both political parties without 
     partisan interference. In enacting the APA, Congress ensured 
     that agency judges must be both highly qualified and 
     independent from political influence.
       Until yesterday, federal agencies hired ALJ candidates with 
     7 years of litigation experience. Candidates were ranked 
     based on their scores on a six-part examination conducted by 
     the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Now, any agency 
     that wants to hire an ALJ needs no approval from OPM and can 
     hire any attorney regardless of skill or experience.
       The new appointment process will not afford members of the 
     public the due process and fair hearings they deserve. 
     Instead, it will give agency insiders and political loyalists 
     a job for which they may not be qualified but for which they 
     will feel indebted.
       As judges, we are disappointed that a merit selection 
     system that produced nonpartisan judges for seven decades was 
     eliminated by the stroke of a pen. We call for presidential 
     reconsideration or Congressional intervention to restore the 
     ALJ merit selection system.
       The Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference (FALJC), 
     established in 1947, is a nonpartisan voluntary professional 
     association for federal ALJs. FALJC is dedicated to improving 
     the administrative judicial process, presenting educational 
     programs, and ensuring due process and judicial independence 
     in administrative proceedings.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, by refusing to 
allow this amendment to come to the floor, the majority has denied 
Members the opportunity to have an important debate on this issue. 
Rather than avoiding the issue, the majority should be standing up for 
a just and impartial review process. Rather than refusing a vote on 
this amendment, the majority should be joining us in holding the 
administration to account.
  Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed by the majority's opposition to 
consider this issue that affects so many constituents across the 
country. I, therefore, urge Members to oppose the rule.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority has filled the Financial Services 
Appropriations bill with anti-Home Rule riders that meddle in local 
D.C. affairs. Not one or two provisions, which would be bad enough, but 
five.
  One would prohibit D.C. from using its own funding to carry out 
Initiative 77, which eliminates the tipped minimum wage. That is an 
initiative, by the way, that passed recently with 56 percent of the 
vote.
  Last night in the Rules Committee, the Republicans even made in order 
the Palmer amendment. This would prevent the District from implementing 
its local individual responsibility requirement. If passed, this 
amendment would increase health insurance premiums and cause residents 
to lose access to affordable coverage options.
  Mr. Speaker, why are the Republicans continuing to interfere in local 
D.C. government? Where are the small-government conservatives? Where is 
the Freedom Caucus? They should be outraged by this meddling.
  Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton filed amendments to strike these 
riders and spoke in the Rules Committee last night. She asked a pretty 
simple question: Don't my Republican friends have their own districts 
to worry about?
  Her amendments complied with the rules of the House, yet they were 
blocked from getting a vote on the floor. We can't even debate them 
here. The majority is afraid of a fair fight.
  We are long past the point of breaking the record for being the most 
closed Congress in the history of the United States of America. This is 
more of the same for the most closed Congress in history, but that 
doesn't make it right, Mr. Speaker. When will the Republicans finally 
say, ``Enough''?
  So enough with the meddling in D.C. affairs, enough with overriding 
the will of local residents, and enough with the restrictive amendment 
process.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

                              {time}  1300

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the ranking member for 
his very cogent remarks that go to the principle of the matter before 
the House today.
  I have to say, I come to the well of the House in outrage against the 
attack on the District of Columbia by the Republican House. In 1973--
that is 45 years ago--Congress passed the District of Columbia Home 
Rule Act, which created the locally elected government.
  Understand that after the Civil War, it is Republicans who first gave 
the District of Columbia the right to have its own home rule, a 
tradition that this Republican majority has repudiated. According to 
the Home Rule Act, a central purpose of the act was, and I am quoting, 
``to relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon essentially 
local District matters.''
  President Nixon, who signed the bill, affirmed that purpose himself 
when he wrote--and I am going to quote President Nixon: ``One of the 
major goals of this administration is to place responsibility for local 
functions under local control and to provide local governments with the 
authority and resources they need to serve their communities 
effectively. The measure I signed today represents a significant step 
in achieving this goal in the city of Washington. It will give the 
people of the District of Columbia the right to elect their own city 
officials and to govern themselves in local affairs.
  ``As the Nation approaches the 200th anniversary of its founding, it 
is particularly appropriate to ensure those persons who live in the 
Capital City the rights and privileges which have long been enjoyed by 
most of their countrymen. But the measure I signed today does more than 
create machinery for the election of local officials. It also broadens 
and strengthens the structure of city government to enable it to deal 
more effectively with its responsibility.''
  Signed, Richard Nixon.
  How do we square those words and the bipartisan Home Rule Act with a 
fiscal year 2019 appropriation bill which is the most significant abuse 
of congressional power over the District

[[Page H6280]]

of Columbia since Republicans took control of the House in 2011?
  This bill repeals two D.C. laws and prohibits the city from spending 
its local funds, consisting only of local taxes raised in the city by 
local citizens, not a cent of it raised from this House, to either 
carry out or enact three laws.
  I filed amendments to strike all five of these undemocratic riders. 
Even though my amendments complied with the House rules, the Rules 
Committee did not make any of them in order, afraid, apparently, of 
debate on this matter before the people of the United States. Adding 
insult to injury, the Rules Committee piled on by making in order two 
additional anti-Home Rule riders. If this bill stands, there will be a 
record seven anti-Home Rule riders in it.
  Some of these riders come back every year, and yet we have been able 
to get them off every year in conference.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poliquin). The time of the gentlewoman 
has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. NORTON. This Republican majority endlessly touts their support of 
local affairs--a lie, as long as that principle stops at the District 
of Columbia border, and Republicans interfere with the spending and 
laws of a local jurisdiction not their own.
  Pardon me for being angry, but I remind my colleagues that the 
700,000 American citizens who live in the District of Columbia pay the 
highest Federal taxes per capita in the United States and have fought 
and died in every war since the Revolutionary War; yet they have no 
voting representation on this House floor, even on their own 
appropriation, and no representation in the Senate at all.
  These riders amount to bullying that takes unfair advantage of the 
District of Columbia. No wonder we are making headway on our D.C. 
statehood bill, but it should not take statehood.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again 
expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. NORTON. It should not take statehood for any district to be 
treated with respect and fairness.
  We have been successful in cleaning up the D.C. appropriation in the 
past, and we will be successful again. The people of the District of 
Columbia will not let you get away with bullying them after they have 
paid their Federal taxes the way every Member of this House has.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how many more speakers the 
gentleman has on his side.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close whenever my friend is.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left to 
close.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, when Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein announced the 
charges against 12 Russian military officers on Friday, he said: ``We 
need to work together to hold the perpetrators accountable, and we need 
to keep moving forward to preserve our values, protect against future 
interference, and defend America.''
  Well, Republicans and Democrats working together need to come 
together to defend this country. That shouldn't be controversial. It 
should be common sense, and it should be above partisanship.
  But we have a President who probably tunes out anything the Deputy 
Attorney General says because President Trump is too busy attacking the 
special counsel investigation on a near-daily basis. He calls it a 
witch hunt and even worse, and that is despite the fact that the 
Justice Department has issued more than 100 criminal counts against 
more than 30 people and three companies. Numerous associates of the 
President have pled guilty, and his former campaign chairman is sitting 
in jail today.

  Or maybe more accurately, Mr. Speaker, the President attacks Robert 
Mueller's investigation because of that fact, because the special 
counsel could be closing in on even more possible wrongdoing. Where 
there is smoke there is usually fire, and there is at least a lot of 
smoke so far.
  So, given the President's action, we need, as a Congress, to step it 
up. We need to hold Russia accountable and prevent this kind of hacking 
from ever happening again because the President, who is unwilling to 
say even publicly that he trusts the American intelligence community 
over Vladimir Putin, will not.
  Mr. Speaker, I am asking my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question so we can go on record as disagreeing and condemning what the 
President did in Helsinki, which was such a betrayal of our values. And 
what we are asking to do is to vote to endorse the Speaker of the 
House, the Republican Speaker of the House's words.
  I mean, quite frankly, we should have a resolution of disapproval on 
the floor, or maybe even a censure, given what the President did. But 
we are saying let's come together in a bipartisan way, and let's make a 
statement that we disagree with what the President did, what his 
behavior was.
  So vote ``no'' on the previous question, and vote ``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me make a couple of comments in response to my friend.
  It was the last President, not this President, who told Russian 
leaders that he would be more flexible after an election.
  It was the last President, not this President, who said Russia was 
not a geopolitical threat and chastised Mitt Romney when he raised it 
in the campaign.
  And it was the last President, not this President, who drew a red 
line and then refused to enforce it.
  If you actually look at the Record, it is this administration and 
this party that, frankly, has begun to restore America's defenses after 
years of neglect by the last administration. That is not good news for 
Russia.
  It is this administration that has also encouraged and cajoled some 
of our allies to increase their defense level up to the levels that 
they, themselves, had committed to.
  It was this President that twice enforced red lines in Syria.
  It was this Congress that administered ever-increasing penalties on 
Russian sanctions.
  So I think if you look at the actions, the actions are pretty 
impressive.
  But I want to actually get back to the matter at hand, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to encourage all Members to support 
the rule. Today's bill represents the next step toward fulfilling our 
primary obligation as Members of Congress: funding the Government of 
the United States.
  Although not perfect, the bill before us today will lead to the 
completion of the House's work on two more appropriations bills. We 
will provide funding for important government activities like fighting 
forest fires, funding the Indian Health Service, enforcing tax and 
securities laws, and funding our national parks; and we will ensure 
that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is no longer allowed to 
operate without congressional oversight.
  While I look forward to completing our work and passing all 12 
appropriations bills, this legislation represents an important step 
along the way to fulfilling that goal. I applaud my colleagues on the 
Appropriations Committee for their work.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 996 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution the House shall be 
     considered to have adopted the resolution (H. Res. 999) 
     expressing agreement with the statements of the Speaker of 
     the House of Representatives made on July 16, 2018, regarding 
     Russian Federation interference in the 2016 United States 
     elections and related matters.
                                  ____


        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

[[Page H6281]]

     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. COLE. 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.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on:
  Adopting the resolution, if ordered; and
  Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 183, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 331]

                               YEAS--230

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     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
     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)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     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)
     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
     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--183

     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
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     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
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     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, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     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--15

     Black
     Cardenas
     Crowley
     Ellison
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hill
     Jackson Lee
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Roby
     Shea-Porter
     Simpson
     Speier
     Walz

                              {time}  1336

  Messrs. SOTO and O'HALLERAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. PALMER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 331.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page H6282]]

  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 229, 
noes 184, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 332]

                               AYES--229

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     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
     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
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     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
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--184

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     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
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     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, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     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
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     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--15

     Black
     Cardenas
     Clark (MA)
     Crowley
     Ellison
     Garamendi
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Jackson Lee
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Roby
     Shea-Porter
     Simpson
     Speier
     Walz

                              {time}  1344

  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.
  Stated against:
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 332.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, for personal reasons, I was unable to vote 
today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 
331 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 332.

                          ____________________