[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.
____________________