[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 121 (Wednesday, July 18, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H6501-H6554]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019
General Leave
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous material on H.R. 6147, and that I may include
tabular material on the same.
[[Page H6502]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 996 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 6147.
Will the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren) kindly take the
chair.
{time} 1623
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further 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, with Mr. Hultgren (Acting
Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
amendment No. 39 printed in House Report 115-830 offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) had been disposed of.
Amendment No. 42 Offered by Ms. Moore
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 42
printed in House Report 115-830.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to terminate or restructure the Great Lakes Advisory
Board, a Federal advisory committee chartered under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentlewoman
from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the committee for supporting me
in my very important amendments last evening, and I have another very
important amendment that is before the committee here today.
Mr. Chair, I urge support for my amendment that would prevent the
administration from dismantling the EPA's Great Lakes Advisory Board. I
am so pleased that this bill has again rejected the President's
proposal to gut the GLRI, and this amendment would prevent them from
dismantling the advisory board.
Mr. Chairman, this is a critical matter for anyone who drinks water.
The Great Lakes provide drinking water to some 40 million people. Let
me say that again. Forty million people depend on this resource for one
of life's basic requirements, water, not to mention anglers and
recreation.
As an old African proverb goes, water has no enemies. So, hopefully,
the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is something that we are going
to recognize as having played a critical role in protecting and
restoring one of America's greatest national treasures, a life-
sustaining element, water.
Just to mention, not to bore people with a lot of statistics, but the
Great Lakes contain about 21 percent of the world's surface freshwater
and more than 80 percent, 85 percent, of the freshwater in North
America. This is indispensable.
As critical as this funding is, it is also important that the EPA
receive advice and input from local stakeholders regarding priorities
under that program. The Great Lakes Advisory Board provides such
advice.
EPA established the board in 2013 to provide independent advice to
the EPA administration in its capacity as chair of the Federal Great
Lakes Interagency Task Force. Some of the past activities of the
advisory board have been providing the EPA with recommendations
regarding what are the most significant stressors and needs for the
Great Lakes ecosystem; providing the EPA with recommendations on ways
to ensure effective public input into the Great Lakes action plan
process; and providing advice on whether the GLRI should invest in
efforts to understand long-term, future threats and communicate them to
the Great Lakes community for action.
In light of reports of efforts to undermine the board, on a
bipartisan basis, I joined colleagues in writing to the EPA earlier
this year to make clear that we support the establishment and
maintenance of the board. My amendment would put teeth behind this
letter and make it clear to the administration what congressional
intent is regarding this important advisory board.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, this bill is consistent with years past that
provided robust funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.
Therefore, this is an initiative I can support and we accept.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentleman from California.
He is a very effective leader on this issue. I appreciate him.
An effective Great Lakes Advisory Board is vital to ensuring that the
GLRI remains successful and impactful today and in the years to come.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Mullin
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 43
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enforce the final rule entitled ``Oil and Natural
Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and
Modified Sources'' published by the Environmental Protection
Agency in the Federal Register on June 3, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg.
35824).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds from
enforcing the Obama administration EPA methane rule. This rule is
currently facing litigation uncertainty, and Congress must act to block
this job-killing regulation estimated to cost our economy $530 million
annually.
While oil and gas production has increased more than 25 percent since
2005, related methane emissions have actually decreased almost 40
percent during the same time period.
It is counterproductive for the Federal Government to enact harmful
regulations that cause inefficiencies, recklessly spend taxpayer
dollars, and force hardship upon job-creating industries.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, the gentleman's amendment would block the
EPA from regulating methane emissions from sources in the oil and gas
sector.
Methane is a primary component of natural gas and is a potent
greenhouse gas with global warming potential more than 25 times greater
than carbon dioxide.
{time} 1630
In 2013, nearly one-third of the methane emissions in the United
States came from oil and gas production, processing, transmission, and
distribution. There is no doubt, no doubt at all that methane
contributes to the increased levels of greenhouse gas concentrations,
which will contribute to long-lasting changes in our climate such as
rising global temperatures, sea level rising, changes in weather and
precipitation patterns.
[[Page H6503]]
Public health risks include more heat waves and drought, worsening
smog, increased intensity of extreme weather events, and increasing the
range of ticks and mosquitoes, which can spread diseases such as Lyme
disease, West Nile Virus, and Zika.
The disgraced former EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, tried to delay
this rule, but the courts blocked that effort and ruled that the EPA
cannot delay implementation. When is the majority going to stop the
assault on the environment?
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, the EPA has imposed these substantial
competitive barriers, despite the industry's significant reduction in
methane emissions through their own initiatives and innovation.
What is not known is that through the EPA's own analysis, it shows
that methane emissions from hydraulically fractured gas wells have
actually fallen dramatically. According to EPA data--not my data, but
EPA data--methane emissions from oil and gas production declined by 38
percent from 2005 to 2012, and methane emissions from hydraulically
fractured natural gas wells have plummeted 73 percent since 2011.
Total methane emissions from natural gas systems actually are down 11
percent since 2005, despite the significant production increases over
this time period. This is a prime example of market forces at work.
American producers developed innovative means of capturing additional
methane because doing so means they have more product to sell.
Profitability, rather than a top-down Washington regulation, drove this
unprecedented emissions reduction.
In fact, in 2012 alone, voluntary methane emission reductions
activities by the U.S. oil and gas industry generated $364 million in
additional revenue.
Unfortunately, the methane rule represents the kind of one-size-fits-
all policy that will actually stifle innovation and discourage further
investment in emission reduction technology.
Actually, as a result, the EPA's methane rule, if allowed to stand,
will not only lead to economic harm, but environmental harm as well.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right to close, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, EPA was directed by the President to take a second look
at the methane rule promulgated by the Obama administration. In
conjunction with that review, EPA attempted to provide the regulating
community with some certainty by postponing some implementation dates.
However, the courts have blocked that from happening.
In light of these challenges, the time is ripe for a temporary pause
on the enforcement of these requirements, so I urge my colleagues to
support the amendment.
Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close.
Well, simply put, I urge our colleagues on both sides to come
together and kill this job-killing regulation and support this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, as I said, I oppose this amendment.
Climate change threatens the health and welfare for current and future
generations.
As the gentlemen have pointed out, Mr. Chairman, industry has moved--
has moved, in part, because of pressure from the EPA, and, in part,
because of just the financial loss of allowing this methane gas to
escape into the atmosphere. It is dollars that are burning up.
These are precious resources that we are taking from the Earth, and
we should make sure that we don't waste any of it, and that is why I
think the EPA rule should not be delayed.
As has been pointed out, industry has the ability to capture this
methane. It has the ability to make money from it, and I want to just
make sure that we encourage everyone in the industry to move forward.
Mr. Chairman, let me the give you an example. The Bakken Oil Field,
which is in North Dakota--I am very familiar with it because I spent
many a summer in that area--burns brighter than the entire metropolitan
area of the Twin Cities at night because of the flares from the methane
that are being burnt. That energy should be captured. It should be
saved. We should be conservationists for future generations. We must
take action, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 44 Offered by Mr. Mullin
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 44
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows
At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to prepare, propose, or promulgate any regulation or
guidance that references or relies on the analysis contained
in--
(1) ``Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for
Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866'',
published by the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of
Carbon, United States Government, in February 2010;
(2) ``Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the
Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under
Executive Order 12866'', published by the Interagency Working
Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government, in
May 2013 and revised in November 2013;
(3) ``Revised Draft Guidance for Federal Departments and
Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the
Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews'', published by the
Council on Environmental Quality on December 24, 2014 (79
Fed. Reg. 77802);
(4) ``Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the
Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under
Executive Order 12866'', published by the Interagency Working
Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government, in
July 2015;
(5) ``Addendum to the Technical Support Document on Social
Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive
Order 12866: Application of the Methodology to Estimate the
Social Cost of Methane and the Social Cost of Nitrous
Oxide'', published by the Interagency Working Group on Social
Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government, in August
2016; or
(6) ``Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the
Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under
Executive Order 12866'', published by the Interagency Working
Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States
Government, in August 2016.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit funds from
implementing the Obama administration's social cost of carbon rule.
Congress and the American people have repeatedly rejected cap and trade
proposals.
The Obama administration continuously used social cost of carbon
models, which could be easily manipulated in order to attempt to
justify new job-killing regulations.
The House has a clear, strong record of opposition to the social cost
of carbon, voting at least 11 times to block, defund, or oppose the
proposal, including H. Con. Res. 119, which we will be considering
later this week.
A carbon tax would be passed along to consumers, undermining the
success of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act we passed last year.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
[[Page H6504]]
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very harmful rider,
and it would prohibit the EPA from considering the social cost of
carbon as part of rulemaking. The social cost of carbon is an estimate
of economic damages associated with small increases of carbon dioxide
emissions in a given year.
It represents the best scientific information available,
incorporating the impacts from carbon pollution into regulatory
analyses. Weakening or eliminating use of social cost of carbon as a
tool for Federal agencies that would ignore the sobering cost of
health, environment, and economic impacts of extreme weather, rising
temperatures, intensifying smog, and other impacts.
We cannot afford to abandon science while trying to tackle climate
change, so I strongly oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Montana (Mr. Gianforte).
Mr. GIANFORTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. It would prohibit
funds from being used to advance guidance or make rules that rely on
Obama-era social cost of carbon guidance.
I have heard from folks in Montana who cannot get a permit to expand
a coal mine because they didn't account for the carbon released by the
trains that would carry the coal. I have heard of the difficulties of
building railroad bridges because they might allow more coal to be
transported.
We must stop relying on metrics that were designed by the keep-it-in-
the-ground crowd. Similar language passed, on a bipartisan vote, here
in the House last September. I urge adoption of the amendment.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, garbage in equals garbage out. We have heard
this on numerous occasions.
And in this instance, the international--or correction--the
Interagency Working Group has chosen to disregard the policy decisions
from OMB Circular A-4 regarding how they set the modeling. And as a
result of that, they have--interestingly, the analysis generated by
them would have been 80 percent lower than the mean SCC value if they
had followed the guidance. And the result overstates the benefits by at
least four times relative to what it would be if only the national
benefits were considered as OMB directs.
This is a blatant pattern of disregard, Mr. Chairman, for the OMB
guidance in order to inflate the SCC and begs the question how many
input decisions were responsible where responsible people could
disagree were selected in order only to inflate the SCC value.
Let's restore the faith and vote for this amendment.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for bringing this
amendment. It is an important amendment to people that matter very
much.
John Dingell is a man of integrity. I feel I know his heart. He has a
huge heart, and we disagreed on many issues, but I know him as a man of
integrity.
He was told he had to push through the cap and trade that would have
gotten into costing people for this so-called cost of carbon, and he
said it is not only a tax, it is a great big tax, and he lost his
chairmanship.
But what John Dingell knows, what I know is when you start creating
taxes on fuel, the people that get hammered the worst are the Nation's
poorest among us. That is who it gets passed to. That is who gets
crushed. Let's don't do this to the hardworking, poorest among us.
Let's vote for the Mullin amendment.
Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reiterate again: We
should be using the best scientific information available, and we
should be incorporating the impacts from carbon pollution into
regulatory analysis.
When we see children being hospitalized because of intense smog, more
people suffering respiratory and heart disease, and other impacts from
that, we all pay for that. Whether we pay for it in emergency room
visits, we pay for it in our insurance, there are many ways in which we
are individually paying for the pollution that is created, let alone
recognizing the effects it has on climate change.
So, simply, again, we cannot afford to abandon science while trying
to tackle climate change, and I strongly oppose the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 45 Offered by Ms. Moore
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 45
printed in House Report 115-830.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. ___. There is appropriated for grants for lead
reduction projects under section 1459B of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-19b) $10,000,000, to be derived
from a reduction of $10,000,000 in the amount provided in
this Act under the heading ``Environmental Protection
Agency--Environmental Programs and Management''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentlewoman
from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today to offer an
amendment to increase resources available to help address a scourge
that is occurring in so many of our communities: lead poisoning.
My district is facing its challenges like so many in our country, and
the Federal Government must do its part by ensuring that we provide the
resources to address this scourge.
Two of the most prominent vectors are old housing and old water
infrastructure, lateral lead pipes. My amendment would attempt to
address just one of the sources of lead, old lateral lead pipes, while
recognizing the need to address housing when the appropriate funding
bill comes to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, we know that children throughout America are at risk of
a major public health crisis given aging drinking water infrastructure
and housing stock. In my district alone, there are tens of thousands of
lead service lines that pose a threat to the public health of children.
We have heard so much about Flint, Michigan, but I can tell you that
lead poisoning in my district mirrors that of Flint, Michigan. I mean,
Mr. Chairman, there just are no safe levels of lead for children.
{time} 1645
As noted in a recent report by The Pew Charitable Trusts: ``In the
absence of lead, hundreds of thousands of children would be more likely
to realize their full potential thanks to higher grade point averages,
a better chance of earning high school diplomas, and graduating from
college, and a reduced likelihood of becoming teen parents or becoming
convicted of crimes.'' Yet lead exposure remains a serious threat for
far too many kids and their families in our country.
The only way to remove lead pipes as a source of lead contamination
is to completely remove them. That is the goal that I joined with my
former and dearly loved colleague, the late great Louise Slaughter, in
writing to urge the EPA in March of this year to update its lead and
copper rule to require
[[Page H6505]]
the full replacement of lead service lines.
But both public utilities and private homeowners are hard pressed to
finance this needed work. It is my understanding that the average cost
can be somewhere between $6,000 to $8,000 to replace such lines, which
is an unimaginable sum for many of the households that our constituents
live in.
My amendment would provide funding for one of the newest tools that
Congress created in the 2016 WRDA bill to help communities address lead
pipes. This program provides grants for lead reduction projects that
help reduce the concentration of lead in drinking water by, among other
uses, providing assistance to low-income homeowners to replace lead
service lines.
Recognizing the need, Congress authorized the program at $60 million
per year; yet it received only $10 million in the fiscal year 2018
omnibus appropriations bill. While I would like to get closer to the
authorized level, my amendment is modest and pragmatic and would simply
continue funding for this program at the fiscal year 2018 level.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2018 bill included $10
million for EPA to establish a grant program to provide funds to States
and communities for lead reduction projects as authorized in the 2016
WIIN Act.
I might also point out that we now have a WIFIA program that is in
the bill, which will allow for communities throughout the country to
leverage up to $5 billion annually, and maybe more in the future, in
their communities for such things as lead reduction within their towns
and counties.
Mr. Chairman, therefore, this is an amendment we can accept, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his stewardship
and for his recognition of the importance of this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mrs. McMorris Rodgers
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 46
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency to implement, or to require the State of Washington to
implement, the final rule entitled ``Revision of Certain
Federal Water Quality Criteria Applicable to Washington''
published on November 28, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 85417).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentlewoman
from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my
amendment to reverse the past administration's decision to implement
unattainable water quality standards through the Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA.
I want to be clear that this amendment is not about opposing clean
water standards. This is an amendment to support the work that
Washington State, which has an impeccable environmental record,
undertook.
Washington developed their own standards for more than 190 pollutants
after more than 3 years of research, outreach, and public feedback.
These requirements would have already been some of the most rigorous
nationwide, but EPA rejected them.
For example, Spokane, the largest city in my district, invested $340
million in the first-of-its-kind water treatment facility. This
facility was celebrated, and the Republican mayor was invited to the
White House by President Obama to celebrate this investment as a model
for cities to work with residents to meet new environmental standards.
The problem? Even this state-of-the-art facility would not be able to
meet the immeasurable EPA standards.
Spokane Valley, another major city in my district, is facing an
estimated $1 billion for municipal and industrial compliance costs
because of these rules. This will affect companies like Inland Empire
Paper Company, which has been in business since 1911. Right now, the
PCB standards that the previous administration imposed will force them
to limit their cardboard recycling capabilities and force them to send
these products to landfills.
We often hear the term ``best available science.'' Well, these
requirements cannot even be measured by the scientific community. They
are unattainable.
It is not new for the EPA to abuse their power in the name of clean
water. In Washington State, we saw this abuse of Federal authority with
the What's Upstream? campaign and its efforts to misrepresent our
farmers and ranchers.
When the Federal Government enacts a policy, it should not be pouring
Federal dollars into lobbying for its support.
Requirements that can't even be measured are an abuse of trust, and
it is vital that we fix this problem now, which is why my amendment
limits funds to implement EPA's water quality standards that preempt
Washington State's.
This amendment will allow flexibility and reasonable guidelines for
States to move forward with water quality standards that can be
measured and met.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, as has been pointed out, this amendment
would prohibit the implementation of Washington State's revised water
quality criteria. This standard protects communities from exposure to
toxic contaminants, such as PCB, arsenic, and mercury in the fish that
they eat.
Being from Minnesota, Mr. Chairman, I understand fish advisories very
well. I often see signs that limit fish consumption for pregnant women,
and for children in particular.
This action, however, would ignore court decisions and the voices of
Native American Tribes, Asian-Pacific Islander communities, and fishing
interests, all of which agree that seafood consumption standards are
necessary in order to protect public health and water quality. In fact,
the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission has asked that Congress
reject this amendment because it puts the treaty rights that have been
protected and the resources of Tribes in Washington at risk.
Many native families subsist on the fish that they catch. Passing
this amendment lowering water quality standards puts these families at
greater risk of poisoning from their traditional foods.
There is a lot of funding in this bill and some of the other bills
that we have on the floor, Mr. Chairman, that work to prevent diabetes
or to lower risk from diabetes with high blood sugar. Tribal nations
are finding that returning to native foods, such as fish, is a great
and excellent way of preventing or reducing the effects of diabetes.
But after years of failure by Washington State to propose a
protective standard, EPA finally put forth a standard which is more
protective and meets the Clean Water Act requirements.
Now, I understand that the regulated community has always been uneasy
about what stricter standards might be. The revised water quality
criteria take steps to address their concerns.
The standard approved the use of new implementation tools, including
a longer compliance schedule and intake credits. An intake credit means
that, if the water comes to you with a pollutant and you don't
discharge it, you are not responsible for having to remove it. So if
you didn't pollute it, you are not responsible for cleaning it up.
[[Page H6506]]
This amendment would circumvent all of the work that has been done to
devise a standard that protects public health and water quality.
Furthermore, Washington State officials believe that, despite the
Congresswoman's good intentions--and I do believe that these are good
intentions--this amendment would hurt the State of Washington. It would
not actually help the dischargers.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly support her amendment.
Under the previous administration, EPA proposed this stringent water
regulation standard in Washington State without utilizing sound
scientific data or evidence. In doing so, EPA created regulatory
uncertainty and imposed unachievable permit levels on the State, which
are costly and nearly impossible for industries to comply with.
I encourage the State, the Tribes, and the EPA to continue to work
together to find agreeable standards that improve water quality and
human health while, simultaneously, providing clarity to the impacted
communities and industries. In the meantime, though, I certainly urge
my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, when humans consume contaminated fish, it
results in serious health impacts, such as cancer, organ damage and
reproductive dysfunction, or impairment in brain development.
High fish-consuming communities--as I have mentioned, Native American
Tribes and Asian-Pacific Islander communities--need the protections
afforded by this revised water quality standard.
I would like to, for the Record, again state that this amendment is
not supported by the State of Washington or the Tribal communities in
the area.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Clearly, more
work needs to be done. I look forward to having this amendment not pass
and for people to get down to doing the serious work that needs to be
done to address the gentlewoman's concerns.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Loudermilk
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 47
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enforce the final rule entitled ``Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and
Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles--Phase 2'' published in the
Federal Register on October 25, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 73478 et
seq.), with respect to trailers.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, under the Clean Water Act, Congress
gave the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate any
air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new
motor vehicle engines which may be reasonably anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare.
To avoid any ambiguity, Congress further defined the term ``motor
vehicle'' as a ``self-propelled vehicle designed for transporting
persons or property on a street or highway.''
Until recently, regulators understood, as any reasonable person
would, that the term ``self-propelled vehicle'' only applies to
vehicles that can move on a roadway under their own power, such as
cars, pickup trucks, semi trucks, SUVs, or vans. Never was a trailer,
whether a utility trailer pulled by a pickup truck, a boat trailer
pulled by a car, or a cargo trailer pulled by a semi considered a self-
propelled vehicle, and, therefore, these were never under the
regulatory authority of the EPA.
However, in 2016, without any authority of Congress, the EPA extended
its regulatory authority and included cargo trailers in the rules for
greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency standards for on-road,
heavy-duty vehicles and engines. This rule will require cargo trailers
to add components that, in some cases, have shown to improve
aerodynamics, resulting in some improvement in fuel efficiency.
However, this blanket policy, which has resulted from regulatory
overreach, is not only costly to consumers, but, in some cases, is
counterproductive to the Agency's own mission of promoting clear, clean
air policies and practices.
The additional weight of these aerodynamic components that are being
mandated by the EPA will cause carriers to significantly limit the
amount of cargo a single trailer can carry and still stay within DOT
weight restrictions. Therefore, carriers have to put more trucks on the
highway to carry the same amount of goods. Obviously, more trucks mean
more carbon emissions without any measurable improved efficiency.
If the EPA is able to enforce this regulation, it will not only be
counterproductive to the environment, but also very costly to American
consumers.
{time} 1700
The trucking industry has made significant strides in recent years to
improve fuel efficiency and reduce air pollution, without the
government mandates.
This amendment simply prevents the EPA from using any funds in this
act to regulate trailers under the greenhouse gas rule. Congress never
extended to the EPA the authority to regulate trailers under the Clean
Air Act, because trailers are not and have never been considered self-
propelled vehicles.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this commonsense amendment,
so we can put an end to this blatant regulatory overreach.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poe of Texas). The gentlewoman from Minnesota
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit the EPA from
implementing or enforcing its greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency
standards for medium-and heavy-duty engines.
Specifically, this amendment carves out an exemption for trailers.
These fuel standards were jointly developed by the EPA and the
Department of Transportation, and they will improve fuel efficiency and
cut carbon pollution to reduce the impacts of climate change.
In fact, the EPA and DOT estimate that these standards will lower
CO2 emissions by approximately 1 billion metric tons and cut
fuel costs by $170 million. And cutting fuel costs is always a good
thing to go do.
These standards will achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions that
are nearly equal to those associated with all the energy used by U.S.
residents in 1 year.
These efficiency fuel standards have been in place since 2016, and
companies around the world have already made massive investments in the
cleaner technology. Blocking the rule now would have negative
consequences for human health and the environment, but also for the
economy.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
[[Page H6507]]
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), and I thank him for his
hard work on this amendment.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much, and I
appreciate my colleague for introducing this amendment.
He is absolutely right. The Clean Air Act never gave the EPA this
authority. They just created it out of thin air.
Their rationale is kind of interesting, because they took the
authority that said that they could regulate new motor vehicles or new
motor vehicle engines, and then the definition of new motor vehicle
meaning any self-propelled vehicle designed for transporting persons or
properties on a street or highway, and applied it to trailers. They are
not self-propelled.
When I asked Janet McCabe, who was the Acting Director of the Air
Division of the EPA, when she came in front of the Energy and Commerce
Committee how in the world could they do this, and I presumed she
wasn't a lawyer and she said: Well, yes, I am.
I was surprised, because the language is pretty clear. They don't
have the ability to do that.
She said: Well, you can't haul any goods if the trailer is not
attached to a truck.
That is not in the code. The code says that they only have authority
over self-propelled vehicles. They created this out of whole cloth.
It doesn't make any sense to allow an agency to create law. That is
our job, and I told her that that day.
I said: Look, you think this needs to be changed, bring in a bill,
and we will discuss it.
They have never done that. They don't have authority. We shouldn't
fund something that is clearly illegal based on the plain English
reading of the terms.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to join the
gentleman from Virginia and myself in support of what is a commonsense
upholding of our constitutional authority as the legislative branch,
and I encourage a ``yea'' vote on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, this rule promotes a generation of cleaner,
more fuel efficient trucks. President Obama was right when he said:
``We are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and
the last generation who can do something about it.''
This amendment is harmful, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 48 Offered by Mr. Lamborn
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 48
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
limitation on use of funds
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement or enforce the threatened species
listing of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Preble's meadow jumping mouse is a tiny rodent with
a body approximately 3 inches long, a 4-to 6-inch long tail, and large
hind feet adapted for jumping. This largely nocturnal mouse lives
primarily in streamside ecosystems in Wyoming and Colorado.
To evade predators, the Preble's meadow jumping mouse can jump up to
18 inches high, like a miniature kangaroo. But this little acrobat's
most famous feat was its leap onto the endangered species list back in
May 1998, a move that has since hindered development on the front range
of Colorado, from Colorado Springs, Colorado, to the Wyoming border.
Among projects that have been affected are the Jeffco Parkway
southeast of Rocky Flats, an expansion of the Chatfield Reservoir, and
housing developments in El Paso County along tributaries of Monument
Creek. Builders, landowners, and local governments in affected areas
have incurred hundreds of millions of dollars in added costs because of
this mouse. Protecting the Preble's mouse has even been placed ahead of
protecting human life.
On September 11, 2013, Colorado experienced a major flood event that
damaged or destroyed thousands of homes, important infrastructure, and
public works projects. As a result of the Preble's mouse's listing as
an endangered species, many restoration projects were delayed as
Colorado sought a waiver.
Moreover, the scientific evidence simply does not justify these
delays or the millions of taxpayer dollars that go toward protecting a
rodent that is actually part of a larger group that roams throughout
half of the North American Continent.
Several scientific studies have concluded that the Preble's mouse
does not warrant protection because it isn't a subspecies at all and is
actually related to one of the largest and most widespread genetic
lineages of North American jumping mice. Even the scientist that
originally classified this mouse as a subspecies has since recanted his
work.
Moreover, the Preble's mouse has a low conservation priority score,
meaning that the hundreds of millions of dollars already spent on
protection efforts could have been better spent on other, more fragile
species.
My amendment would correct the injustice that has been caused by the
inaccurate listing of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse and would
refocus the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's efforts on species that
have been thoroughly scientifically vetted and that should be managed
by the Endangered Species Act.
This amendment is supported by Citizens Against Government Waste and
has previously passed the House of Representatives on three separate
occasions, all by bipartisan votes. So I encourage my colleagues to,
once again, support this commonsense amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
First, I would like to make the case that this is a rider, that this
is authorizing on an appropriations amendment, and that the author of
the amendment is in the majority.
The majority could have a hearing in the authorizing committee. It
could come to the floor. It could pass on the floor. The Senate could
move it. And it appears to me that President Trump is in a position to
sign this into law, should he choose to do so.
So there is another alternative vehicle for moving the gentleman's
amendment forward, and that is to do it legislatively and not put it on
an appropriations bill. The Senate has chosen to put no riders on their
appropriations bill.
But the amendment is before us. As pointed out, it would prohibit the
Fish and Wildlife Service from implementing or enforcing the threatened
species listing of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse under the
Endangered Species Act, and it would restrict the Service from offering
any of the critical protections to preserve the species.
Now, once a species is listed under the Endangered Species Act, it is
the role of Fish and Wildlife, and it is primarily permissive, to help
parties comply with the act as they carry out their activities.
I also want to make sure the Record is clear that Fish and Wildlife
Service reviewed the information claiming an alleged taxonomic error in
the listing of the species and found no evidence that the Preble's
meadow jumping mouse is not a valid subspecies.
But under this amendment, the Service would not be able to continue
to offer to recover this species, though the Endangered Species Act
prohibitions would still apply. The Service
[[Page H6508]]
would not be able to work with agencies. The Service would not be able
to work with developers. The Service would not be able to work with
landowners and others to provide ESA compliance.
The Fish and Wildlife Service would be barred from issuing permits or
exemptions. This means that landowners, industry, and other parties who
might need to take the Preble's meadow jumping mouse incidental to
their otherwise lawful activities, such as urban development, would
become vulnerable to third-party lawsuits.
Additionally, this amendment would also limit the Service from
undertaking the required status reviews of the subspecies or from any
initial rulemaking to downlist or to delist the species, as
appropriate.
Mr. Chair, I think it is pretty obvious that this amendment should go
through a different way of coming to the floor, and that is through the
authorizing committee.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to
the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the House has spoken on this.
In last year's conference report, we directed Fish and Wildlife Service
to make this species among its highest priorities for consultation and
permit processing. Obviously, the agency has not moved fast enough, and
they need to get hopping.
So I am sure this amendment will squeak by with all of our support. I
urge an ``aye'' vote.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I will just conclude by saying, if the Fish and Wildlife Service
worked together with developers, local communities, and other groups,
that would be one thing. But when they come in with a hammer and say,
you have to do it this way, that is really not working together. That
has, unfortunately, been the experience of many parties on the front
range of Colorado.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge that, once again, we support this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The Service has a statutory requirement to implement the Endangered
Species Act. Defunding the agency's ability to fulfill its legal
requirements makes it more vulnerable to lawsuits, and I know that that
is something that we are all trying to avoid here. When you have
lawsuits, it is an unnecessary cost for the taxpayers.
Now, the gentleman's amendment would undermine the Service's ability
to work collaboratively with States, local governments, communities,
and landowners, to conserve this imperiled species. The amendment would
create uncertainty for landowners and also make them vulnerable to
lawsuits.
So we should not pass this amendment. We should be supporting the
Fish and Wildlife Service efforts and not blocking the agency from
doing its job.
Mr. Chair, my commitment to the chairman and to my walking partner in
the tunnels as we all come over for votes is to work with them to make
the Fish and Wildlife Service more responsible to the gentleman's
concerns. But at this time, I have to oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 49 Offered by Mr. Lamborn
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 49
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
limitation on use of funds
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement or enforce the threatened species or
endangered species listing of any plant or wildlife that has
not undergone a review as required by section 4(c)(2) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(2)).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
{time} 1715
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chair, my amendment is straightforward. It simply ensures that
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is following current law,
specifically section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, by
conducting their review of all threatened and endangered plants and
wildlife at least once every 5 years.
Time after time, the Federal Government refuses to follow the will of
Congress when it enacted the Endangered Species Act. The government
designates land as ``critical habitat'' despite not meeting the ESA
definition, and the government consistently refuses to remove plants
and animals from threatened or endangered status even when those
species are flourishing and no longer in need of ESA protections.
But you may ask yourself: How does the government know when a species
should be removed from the endangered or threatened list? How does the
government know if a species is recovering? The answer could be found
in the ESA, and it is a requirement that the Federal Government review
all plants or species that are currently listed as endangered or
threatened every 5 years.
Under the Endangered Species Act, the purpose of a 5-year review is
to ensure that threatened and endangered species have the appropriate
level of protection. And because the ESA grants extensive protection to
a species, including harsh penalties for landowners and other citizens,
it makes sense to regularly verify if a plant or animal is being
properly classified or if it should be delisted.
Despite this commonsense requirement, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service acknowledged earlier this year that it has neglected its
responsibility to conduct the required reviews for nearly 1,000
species.
By enforcing the 5-year review, my amendment will ensure that the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is using the best available scientific
information in implementing its responsibilities under the ESA,
including incorporating new information through public comment and
assessing ongoing conservation efforts.
This amendment is supported by Citizens Against Government Waste, the
National Mining Association, and the American Farm Bureau, and it has
previously passed the House of Representatives on three separate
occasions, all by bipartisan votes.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in ensuring that the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service follows the law, the letter of the law, in the
Endangered Species Act and that we do not allow the agency to spend
money that would violate current law.
Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to once again support my amendment,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, the Service attempts to comply with the
statutory mandate to review the status of listed species every 5 years
to determine whether their classification as threatened or endangered
is still appropriate. However, the Service has a backlog of such
reviews due to funding limitations, such as the 42 percent listing
`reduction contained in this bill.
In this bill, the work that the Service would need to do to comply
with what you want in this bill alone is cut $8 million, so that just
puts them farther behind.
[[Page H6509]]
In recent years, the Service has only been able to complete 100 to
120 reviews per year, which is less than half of what is needed to keep
up with the requirement to review all the species every 5 years. So
that falls on Congress for us not giving them the funds that they need
to do the job effectively and efficiently as you are requesting, and
the way to fix that is to give them the proper funding.
But as the gentleman might be aware, the chairman was given level
funding this year. He did the very best that he could with what he had
to balance things out in the interests of the requests he had from
Members of the House, but this particular $8 million cut just makes
your problem even worse.
This amendment would not remove species, without reviews, from the
list of the species protected by the ESA. So the ESA prohibition
against take would still remain, as would the ability of citizens to
sue to force compliance.
If funding cannot be used to enforce the ESA for species with late
reviews, that will leave the species unprotected.
While the proposed language would prohibit the Service from working
with agencies, developers, landowners, and others to provide ESA
compliance through section 7 consultations or section 10 permits for
Federal or private projects that could potentially affect the species,
it would not affect the ability of third parties to sue those agencies
or landowners and potentially enjoin their projects due to the lack of
ESA compliance.
Mr. Chairman, as I said about the last amendment, we don't need
another rider or extraneous provision in this bill. It is already
overburdened with many, many riders.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to take this language to the
appropriate committees of jurisdiction and work through and see if we
can make positive changes and create win-wins.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. And I would
urge my colleagues, if they want the backlog to change, to help the
chairman and me get more money into the allocation of this bill so the
chairman and I can work to achieve those goals together.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Two quick responses, then I am going to yield some time.
When it comes to funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service, they are
just going to have to basically do what every other private or
governmental entity, family, and individual has to do, which is
prioritize their spending. They have to live within their means. We all
have to live within our means. They have to have the priorities where
they can do the job with the money that they are given.
Number two, I think that maybe my colleague would agree with me that
outside environmental groups are largely to blame for bringing massive
lawsuits that tie up a lot of the resources of the Fish and Wildlife
Service so they can't be doing their business of protecting the species
that they are already supposed to be caring for. So I think they really
get a lot of the blame here as well.
Mr. Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I support this amendment. The root of the frustration with
the Endangered Species Act is that species rarely get delisted, and
people who are directly affected by a listing are condemned to a life
of an additional Federal rule indefinitely.
Congress tried to prevent this by requiring the Fish and Wildlife
Service to review the status of every listed species every 5 years and
to down-list or delist species accordingly.
Today, the Service has a backlog of 892 species without a current 5-
year review.
Without these 5-year reviews, species could be recovered and we
wouldn't even know it. I find this simply unacceptable.
Unless the Service focuses its personnel on inherently Federal
responsibilities under the ESA and non-Federal partners take the lead
on actual recovery, we will never break the contentious and litigious
cycle that we have now.
And, by the way, we have actually increased the ESA recovery budget
in this bill for 5-year reviews. So let's get ESA working again.
Mr. Chair, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
Mr. Chair, I would urge my colleagues to once again support this
commonsense amendment, which we have done in the past three different
times on a bipartisan basis.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 50 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 50
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to take any of
the actions described as a ``backstop'' in the December 29,
2009, letter from EPA's Regional Administrator to the States
in the Watershed and the District of Columbia in response to
the development or implementation of a State's watershed
implementation and referred to in enclosure B of such letter.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise to urge support for my amendment, which
would reaffirm and preserve the rights of the States to write their own
water quality plans.
My amendment simply prohibits the EPA from using its Chesapeake Bay
Total Maximum Daily Load and the so-called watershed implementation
plans to hijack States' water quality strategies.
Over the last several years, the EPA has implemented a Total Maximum
Daily Load blueprint for the six States in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed, which strictly limits the amount of nutrients that can enter
the Chesapeake Bay. Through its implementation, the EPA has basically
given every State in the watershed an ultimatum: either the State does
exactly what the EPA says or it faces the threat of an EPA takeover of
its water quality programs.
Congress intended that the implementation of the Clean Water Act be a
collaborative approach, through which the States and the Federal
Government work together. This process was not meant to be subject to
the whims of politics and bureaucrats in Washington. Therefore, my
amendment instructs the EPA to respect the important role States play
in implementing the Clean Water Act.
I want to make it perfectly clear that this amendment would not stop
the EPA from working with the States to restore the Chesapeake Bay, nor
would it undermine the cleanup efforts already underway. My language
only removes the ability of the EPA to take over a State's plan or to
take retaliatory actions against the State if it does not meet EPA-
mandated goals. Again, it ensures States' rights remain intact and not
usurped by the EPA.
It is important to point out that the correlation between the EPA's
outrageous waters of the United States rule and the Bay TMDL, at the
heart of both issues is the EPA's desire to control conservation and
water quality improvement efforts throughout the country and to punish
all those who dare to oppose them.
The bay is a national treasure, and I want to see it restored, but we
know that in order to achieve this goal, the
[[Page H6510]]
States and the EPA must work together. The EPA cannot be allowed to
railroad the States and micromanage the process.
This amendment has passed the House with bipartisan support several
times, and I urge my colleagues to once again vote to ask the EPA to
respect the important role States play in implementing the Clean Water
Act and prevent another Federal power grab by the administration.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, this amendment would allow those who pollute
the Chesapeake Bay to ignore the Environmental Protection Agency's
water quality standards.
Restoring the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed continues to be a
priority, and a priority for this committee to fund it. The EPA
established the mandatory water quality standards and Congress has
appropriated over $1 billion for the Chesapeake Bay Program to help
States, localities, and businesses meet those needs. This amendment
would jeopardize that funding and have devastating effects on the
health of the bay.
How long will the States and localities be able to meet their
obligations that they agreed to in 2014 in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Agreement if the Federal Government's financial assistance goes away?
This is a partnership. We should keep the partnership moving forward.
Furthermore, if this amendment were to become law, it would block the
EPA's ability to enforce the court-ordered settlement requiring the
farm community and agribusinesses to meet watershed specific pollution
limits. It would not, however, relieve the farms and agribusinesses
from the requirements in the settlement.
The State and local governments want to move forward. They want to
keep the partnership moving. But the Farm Bureau and, in fact, some of
the industrial operators they represent don't think that they should be
responsible for controlling the pollution that they dump into our
rivers and streams across the country.
The courts have sided with the EPA on this matter, and the Farm
Bureau continues their pursuit to stop mandatory cleanups through
judicial appeals and through this amendment.
There are enough special interest provisions for big business in this
bill already. We don't need any more.
Mr. Chair, I urge defeat of this amendment, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits the use of funds to
take retaliatory actions against individual States. Importantly, this
amendment would not prevent the EPA from working with States to restore
the bay.
In 1985, the States in the Chesapeake Bay region recognized the need
to address pollutants in the bay and, through their own initiative,
came together to conduct cleanup efforts. These State-driven efforts
were largely successful. As a matter of fact, water quality improved
almost 50 percent from 1985 to 2010.
However, in 2010, the EPA seized the States' authority to determine
their own continued compliance and threatened to dictate Federal
requirements if the States were unable to comply. This 2010 power grab,
known as the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, directly contradicts the intent of
the Clean Water Act.
The Clean Water Act clearly acknowledges State authority in water
quality and requires cooperation rather than coercion between the
States and the Federal Government.
These coercive methods have been tried and imposed and have failed.
Actually, water quality has not improved since the federalization of
the bay cleanup efforts.
It is simply imperative that we return the constitutional rights of
the States to make their own water quality improvement decisions and
restore the State control that has been shown to actually improve water
quality. The future of the Chesapeake Bay depends on it.
{time} 1730
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 30 seconds to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the chairman of the
committee.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I am happy to rise in support of the
gentleman's amendment. This is another example of EPA overreach. It is
my hope that my colleagues from Virginia and Pennsylvania can continue
to work with the administration to find common ground on approaches
that will improve water quality in a more flexible manner. I certainly
support this amendment and I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me just say, this
amendment does not in any way take any resources away from any of the
six States in the Chesapeake Bay region to improve water quality. What
it does take away is the ability of the EPA to dictate to those States
one way, their way, to do it.
The Clean Water Act was written with it in mind that the Federal
Government would set the standards and the States would figure out how
to meet those standards. And that flexibility has been taken away
starting in the Obama administration, and it is time for this Congress
to stop them from doing that so that we can have the kind of
collaborative effort just described by the subcommittee chairman, Mr.
Calvert, and get back to doing things the right way.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, for more than 35 years, there has been a
regional partnership created through the Chesapeake Bay Program, and it
sought to restore and protect the Nation's largest and most productive
estuaries. That is a partnership with the Federal Government which
includes funding that is working together to achieve those common
goals.
Now, I have nothing before me saying that the State of Virginia, or
any of the regional partners, want to withdraw from this moving forward
to continue to clean up this estuary. This amendment would undermine
decades of work and decades of Federal dollars that the Federal
Government has put in in partnership, and it would have devastating
effects to the health of the bay and the economy it supports.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
will be postponed.
AMENDMENT NO. 51 OFFERED BY MR. GALLEGO
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 51
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to
issue a grazing permit or lease in contravention of section
4110.1 or 4130.1-1(b) of title 43, Code of Federal
Regulations.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, grazing on public lands is a privilege--
not a right--and ranchers who use these
[[Page H6511]]
lands should abide by the law and pay their fair share.
On average, Federal rates for grazing are more than 90 percent lower
than what the private sector charges. In fact, these rates are so low
that the government actually loses money administering the grazing
program. My amendment would simply reaffirm that grazing permits or
leases should not be issued to anyone who refuses to comply with BLM
regulations, including the payment of fees.
Mr. Chairman, this is a narrow amendment, but it speaks to a broader
principle. We can't claim to support the rule of law and then look the
other way when ranchers like Cliven Bundy ignore their obligations.
Bundy thumbed his nose at the executive and judicial branches of our
government, running up over $1 million in unpaid fees. He then put the
lives of local and Federal officials in danger during a standoff at his
Nevada ranch.
Later, when two Oregon ranchers named Dwight and Steven Hammond, who
also have a history of disregarding grazing regulations, were sent to
Federal prison for fires they potentially set near Federal lands,
members of the Bundy family led an armed occupation of the national
wildlife refuge.
Mr. Chairman, President Trump recently pardoned the Hammonds,
validating these violent tactics and insulting the courageous law
enforcement officers who risked their lives during the confrontation in
Oregon. With these pardons, Trump has effectively given his blessing to
groups who intimidated, threatened, and occupied local communities. He
has legitimized Bundy's extreme right-wing movements.
Make no mistake, Donald Trump is sending a clear message to militant
and antigovernment organizations: You can break the law, threaten
Federal employees, and endanger public safety with complete impunity.
That is unacceptable.
Mr. Chairman, freeloading on Federal land is unlawful and unfair.
Let's pass my amendment and reaffirm that the ranchers need to play by
the rules just like the rest of us.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, this amendment previously failed by recorded
vote in July of 2016. The amendment taxed ranchers and attempts to
relitigate the Bundy matter.
DOJ was found to have withheld evidence and to have violated these
ranchers' rights. There is no reason to relitigate this matter at this
juncture. The regulations are already in place.
This is an unnecessary political amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chair, let's face it: Ranchers who refuse to pay
what they owe the Federal Government are freeloaders, pure and simple.
If you don't pay your taxes, you go to jail. If you don't pay your
mortgage, you get your house taken away. Ranchers are not more special
than any other Americans. They are freeloaders, and they should pay for
their freeloading. Congress should not stand for it. Let's pass my
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman brings up exactly the point I
am trying to make. We are trying to relitigate a previously settled
issue. It was actually found that these ranchers' rights were violated
by the Department of Justice.
We started looking--the Hammonds were brought up. When we were
actually looking at this case where they actually tried to look at the
fire danger on their land, and it got beyond their lands and on to
public land, they were fined exclusively and hardlined.
Where is the same type of justice given to the Forest Service or the
BLM when their prescribed burn fires go out of hand and take private
holdings? It is not the same. This isn't about freeloading. This is
about a case where we need to look at how we take care of our public
lands.
Mr. Chair, I ask everybody to vote against this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mr. Byrne
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 52
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to repeal section 105(a)(2) or section 105(b) of the
Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (43 U.S.C. 1331
note).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer a straightforward
amendment to prohibit any effort to redirect funds allocated under the
Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, which is commonly known as GOMESA.
For those who don't know, GOMESA calls for a Federal revenue sharing
agreement between the Federal Government and four Gulf States: Texas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. The program is designed to split
up revenue from selected oil and gas lease sales in the Outer
Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico.
The neat thing about GOMESA is it ensures appropriate funding for the
coastal areas that provide the workforce, assume the environmental
risk, build much of the infrastructure, and support the offshore oil
and gas industry. It only makes sense that the coastal areas should
receive an adequate share of the revenue.
Previously, there have been administrative efforts to direct the
money away from the Gulf States, and, instead, devote the resources to
national projects. While I appreciate the Trump administration not
including any such proposal in this year's budget, I still believe it
is important for Congress to send a clear, bipartisan message that we
do not support moving GOMESA funds away from the Gulf Coast.
In fact, just this year, the Department of the Interior disbursed
almost $188 million to the four Gulf oil and gas producing States.
Alabama received $21 million this year, and the two coastal counties in
Alabama received an additional combined amount of $5 million.
I have seen these GOMESA funds put to good use back in my home State
of Alabama, whether it was for environmental rehabilitation protection
projects or programs that boost the coastal tourism economy. GOMESA is
working by supporting and promoting our Gulf Coast communities. If you
talk to our local mayors and county leaders, they will tell you how
critically important GOMESA funding is for their region.
It would be detrimental to go against congressional intent and
redirect these funds away from our respective coastal communities. By
including this amendment, we can make clear that Congress does not
support reallocating these resources and show our strong support for
the Gulf Coast.
Mr. Chair, I ask for an ``aye'' vote on this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Burgess
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 53
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to hire or pay
the
[[Page H6512]]
salary of any officer or employee of the Environmental
Protection Agency under subsection (f) or (g) of section 207
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 209) who is not
already receiving pay under either such subsection on the
date of enactment of this Act.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment on an issue I have
worked on for several years on the Committee on Energy and Commerce as
the authorizing committee.
In 2006, the Committee on Appropriations, without an authorization
from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, included a provision in the
annual Department of the Interior EPA Appropriations bill to allow the
Environmental Protection Agency to begin using a special paid program
that was explicitly and exclusively authorized for use by the Public
Health Service Administration under the Department of Health and Human
Services.
The special pay mechanism allows a government employee to leave the
normal GS pay scale and receive nearly uncapped compensation. This
provision was intended to be used only in unique circumstances for
leaders in the healthcare industry who would never leave the private
sector to work for the Federal Government except for those special,
more competitive salaries.
Under current law, this justification can never be used at the
Environmental Protection Agency. Indeed, some of the employees that the
Environmental Protection Agency pays under title 42, the part of the
U.S. Code that allows for this special pay, were previous government
workers who were merely moved into the special pay scale because they
desired more money.
The Environmental Protection Agency has claimed in the past that
because the Environmental Protection Agency is a health organization,
it may use this statute to pay special hires, and the Committee on
Appropriations has agreed to let them, despite the authorizing
committee's objection.
Originally, the Environmental Protection Agency was granted only a
handful of slots to fill with title 42 hires. That number has now
increased to over 50. The cost to the taxpayers for these employees is
tens of millions of dollars.
This amendment would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from
hiring any new employees under title 42, or transferring any current
employees from the GS scale to title 42. It would not effect current
employees being paid under this provision. This would give the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, the authorizing committee, the time
it needs to address whether the EPA truly deserves the special pay
consideration.
The Government Accountability Office looked into the Department of
Health and Human Services' abuse of title 42 several years ago, and
found problems with the implementation of this program. Within the
Department of Health and Human Services where, arguably, this could be
allowed, why would Congress ever allow the Environmental Protection
Agency to implement the same problematic pay structure?
{time} 1745
In multiple hearings in the Energy and Commerce Committee, both
former Administrator Lisa Jackson and former Administrator Gina
McCarthy refused to give specifics regarding the program. A Freedom of
Information Act request by the EPA union, the American Federation of
Government Employees, sent to my office showed that title 42 hires at
EPA are, in fact, sowing dissent among workers, with the union asking
the Congress to stop this abusive and unfair hiring technique.
A report by the Environmental Protection Agency's own inspector
general in 2015 discovered that the EPA did not properly demonstrate a
need to use the title 42 hiring authority, nor did it provide clear and
convincing justification for its continued use. This is further proof
that the Environmental Protection Agency's use of the title 42 hiring
authority must come to an end.
I have introduced legislation further clarifying that the Public
Health Services Act, written for HHS, does not permit the EPA to use
this language to hire employees under a special pay structure.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, this amendment, like some of the
other amendments that we have seen, could be handled in the authorizing
committee, which the gentleman is a member of, if memory serves me
correctly.
The gentleman is in the majority. Call up, have a hearing, pass
legislation, and then do it in a way that doesn't add more burdensome
amendments and riders to this bill. The Senate is also controlled by
the same party in the majority, and the President is of that party. So
I would encourage the gentleman to go through what I would call regular
order.
This amendment would prohibit the EPA from hiring scientists using
its title 42 authority, the flexible hiring mechanism that allows
agencies to attract and retain staff with outstanding scientific and
technical skills.
This authority, as has been pointed out, is used by the EPA, the CDC,
the NIH, and other agencies that require candidates who have
specialized degrees in areas such as medicine, science, and
engineering.
It is not always easy for the Federal Government to attract high-
level professionals who have invested many years in school and could
easily make more money in private practice or academia. In fact, we
have heard that USGS and BLM quite often have problems keeping highly
educated engineers in place because the private sector comes and offers
them so much more money.
So the Federal Government has found it wise to allow these agencies
to provide some additional funding to retain and recruit these
employees. We should want to have the best and the brightest working
for us and the American people--the best doctors, the best scientists,
and the best engineers. So I am disappointed that the gentleman does
not believe such highly specialized employees deserve the title 42
designation.
With our Nation facing crises like Lyme's disease, PFAS in our
drinking water, and climate change, we should be investing in our
scientists. We should be encouraging them to seek employment with the
Federal Government.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
It is a reasonable amendment. It only affects employees who are new
hires in title 42 in the Environmental Protection Agency, not in the
CDC and not in NIH. It is an amendment that would allow the authorizing
committee an opportunity to catch up with what the Appropriations
Committee has done without an authorization.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, once again, this amendment could go
through a different order and not be placed onto an appropriations
bill.
This is a shortsighted amendment. I think it deserves to have a fair
and open vetting with the House concentrated on just what this would
mean to the EPA. So I don't think we should attack Federal employees
who sometimes have chosen to not receive as much compensation and
devote their lives to public service.
Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 54 will
not be offered.
Amendment No. 55 Offered by Mr. Emmer
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 55
printed in House Report 115-830.
[[Page H6513]]
Mr. EMMER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to withdraw National Forest System lands within the
Rainy River Watershed on the Superior National Forest from
disposition under United States mineral and geothermal
leasing laws.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. EMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment, which I am pleased to say
that I intend to withdraw, because after months of hard work in this
Chamber and with the administration, it is no longer necessary.
Minnesota is the proud home to the Iron Range, which boasts an
abundance of natural resources and critical minerals. When it comes to
protecting the environment while developing our economic assets, nobody
does it better than Minnesota.
Despite this history, on its very last day in office, the Obama
administration proposed to withdraw more than 240,000 acres of land in
our State from mineral exploration and development. This last-minute
action was an assault on our way of life, threatening thousands of jobs
and billions of dollars in State revenue and school trust funding. It
handicaps our national security by increasing our reliance on foreign
sources of minerals.
That is why I offered this amendment to stop this foolish action.
This amendment is identical to one that was unanimously adopted by
this Chamber last year and echoes the good news delivered by the
President to thousands of Minnesotans on June 20 when he announced his
intent to rescind this arbitrary withdrawal, which is now in process.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that the amendment is going to be
withdrawn, but let me explain what this language would have done. To
the best of my knowledge, the leases haven't been permanently withdrawn
yet.
This language would have prevented the Forest Service and the
Interior Department from acting to protect our Nation's most visited
wilderness area. The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness is located
in northern Minnesota, and it is one of the last truly undisturbed wild
places in America.
It is a national treasure, and it is under threat from sulfide-ore
copper mining. The proposed mine is next to the wilderness. There is no
buffer, and there is no barrier here. It is literally in the same
water.
Sulfide-ore mining is the most toxic industry in America. It pollutes
waterways with acid drainage that contains arsenic, mercury, and lead.
The Forest Service recognized how damaging this type of mining could
be to the Boundary Waters, so they proposed a 20-year halt to Federal
mine leases in the watershed. They were urged to study this withdrawal
by our Governor from Minnesota, Tribal Governments, and people from all
across America who were worried that sulfide mining could destroy the
surrounding waters and lands.
They have a right to be worried. All these mines have failed. In
2014, a sulfide-ore mine in British Columbia failed, dumping billions
of liters of toxic sludge, causing permanent environmental damage.
So the Forest Service wisely decided to conduct a science-based
assessment to see if mineral withdrawal would make sense for the water-
intensive ecosystem of our Boundary Waters.
Now, Mr. Chairman, despite what you might hear about what the
gentleman said, the proposed mining withdrawal is not some overreach or
some past or current administration being out of line. In 1976,
Congress established this exact review process under the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act. Congress intentionally provided a way to
protect our country's natural treasures and vulnerable places.
If the gentleman's amendment would have come to the floor for a vote
and would have passed again, it would have stopped that review process.
It would make the withdrawal study meaningless, because it dictates the
outcome.
If this amendment had been on the floor and it would pass, the
withdrawal of the Boundary Waters from sulfide-ore mining would have
been off the table no matter what the study would have said is best for
the wilderness.
In every conversation I have had, and I have had many, with Secretary
Zinke and Secretary Perdue, they have told me the same thing: The study
should be completed.
So I hope my colleagues and the President would reject having these
leases go through without having a study.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Nolan), who is my colleague from Minnesota and coauthor
of this amendment.
Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Emmer for yielding.
The lady, for whom I have enormous respect, has failed to mention the
fact that this or any other project anywhere in the country, let alone
the State of Minnesota, would be, nevertheless, subject to endless
reviews by the Environmental Protection Agency, some of which take up
to 10 and 12 years. So it is not as though we are approving a mining
project here. It is going to have to undergo rigorous review.
As my colleagues from Minnesota know, I was an original sponsor of
the 1978 Boundary Waters Wilderness legislation. I am very proud of
that fact.
I want everybody to know here that, at the time, we made a solid
commitment to preserve and to protect some 1.1 million acres out of the
Superior National Forest for the BWCA, to protect it from all manmade
harm and damage to the environment. But we also made a commitment to
reserve the remainder of the Superior National Forest for mixed-use
purposes and specifically cited recreation an forestry.
The U.S. Forest Service described mining as a desirable-use purpose.
In fact, that was the forestry service at that time.
Our word is our bond in this business. This amendment will uphold
that hard-fought compromise. The simple truth is that we have been
mining on the Iron Range for 130 years, yet we have the cleanest water
in the State of Minnesota and perhaps the country. We are going to do
everything we can to make sure that we keep it that way.
Mr. EMMER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota has 2 minutes
remaining.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, let me first start off by saying that I have great
respect for my colleagues, both Representative Emmer and Representative
Nolan, and the rest of our delegation, Representative McCollum
included.
This has been an ongoing debate.
I just want to make sure folks understand, know, and can appreciate--
and I know the gentleman is going to withdraw the amendment--that
hundreds of thousands of people have been weighing in on this ongoing
public process, and their comments should not be ignored. That is the
bottom line. Nor should we be ignoring a science-based assessment of
the best management practices that are important for one of Minnesota's
and the country's national treasures.
We should be open to new types of mining in Minnesota, but only when
those necessary environmental reviews are met.
I refer to the Boundary Waters as Minnesota's Yellowstone. There is a
reason for that. It has a national perspective with hundreds of
thousands of
[[Page H6514]]
Americans visiting it each and every year, whether it is canoeing or
fishing. That is where some of my best memories in my life have taken
place.
So I want to make sure--we owe it to ourselves and future
generations--that we rely on science before undertaking any activity
that would disrupt this fragile ecosystem.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time,
and I want to thank my colleagues for their ongoing discussion on this
issue.
Mr. Chair, once again my colleagues, Representatives Emmer and Nolan,
are offering this amendment. And while I appreciate my friendship with
my Minnesota colleagues, I once again oppose this amendment and rise in
opposition.
Minnesota has a rich history of taconite mining that dates back
generations. However, this amendment is not about taconite mining, it's
about copper-nickel mining, which has never been done before in
Minnesota and is being proposed within the watershed of the Boundary
Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, which is one of America's most visited
wilderness areas.
An environmental review is currently underway to study the viability
of mining this close to the Boundary Water Canoe Area and this
amendment would defund that review less than a year before its
scheduled completion in 2019.
Hundreds of thousands of people, on both sides of the issue, have
weighed in on this ongoing public process. Their comments should not be
ignored. Nor should we be ignoring the science-based assessment of best
management practices for one of Minnesota's national treasures.
We should be open to new types of mining in Minnesota, but only when
the necessary environmental reviews are met.
The Boundary Waters Canoe Area is Minnesota's Yellowstone. Hundreds
of thousands of Americans visit it on fishing and canoe trips annually.
Some of the best memories of my life have taken place in the Boundary
Waters.
We owe it to ourselves and future generations to rely on science
before undertaking any activity that could potentially disrupt this
fragile ecosystem. I oppose defunding the ongoing environmental review
and ask others to vote against the amendment.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert), who is the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee's Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, now you know how it feels about California
water. I got the drift of this thing.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's interest on this
issue and appreciate the variety of opinions about it. I thank the
gentleman, as well as the gentlewoman from Minnesota, who is the
subcommittee's ranking member, for her willingness to work with the
committee. As we work together to try to move forward with this bill, I
hope a compromise will be found.
Mr. EMMER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. EMMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his work and
continued support on this issue.
To make a few closing points, nothing about this amendment would
allow for mining in the Boundary Waters, period.
{time} 1800
In fact, to demonstrate the disconnect and level of misinformation on
this issue, my colleagues who stand in opposition to this amendment
worked to have report language accompany this bill which incorrectly
calls attention to a ``proposal'' to withdraw lands within the Boundary
Waters Canoe Area, despite the fact there is no such proposal and it
remains unlawful to mine within the Boundary Waters.
Nothing about this amendment eliminates any existing environmental
protections. This amendment reinforces the commonsense reality that
economic growth and environmental protection do not have to be mutually
exclusive.
I am pleased to have the support of the House on this very important
issue during this 115th Congress. I am pleased to have the pledged
support and continued commitment from the administration to end this
withdrawal. I am pleased that we will soon be able to get Washington
out of the lives of thousands of hardworking Minnesotans.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I withdraw the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I reserved my time. The gentleman has
withdrawn the amendment. Even though the amendment has been withdrawn,
I don't have the right to close or I would have used my time.
Could the Parliamentarian instruct me as to if my time is actually
gone.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman's time has elapsed because the
amendment was withdrawn.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, we do have a tradition of mining in
Minnesota--taconite mining is the new mining--and I just want to
reiterate the fact that these leases are for mining and the company
that is looking to mine is sulfide-ore mining.
But, Mr. Chairman, I want to close by sharing some words from the
founding members of Kids for the Boundary Waters. I have their
handwritten notes. To have handwritten notes from America's young
adults these days is pretty special.
From Callie: ``This unique place shaped my life. The Boundary Waters
helped me to realize my potential.''
From Henry: ``I have watched year after year as families like my own
have grown together in this wilderness.''
From Julia: ``The pristine, untainted waters of the Boundary Waters
are essential to the quality and uniqueness of the journeys of
visitors.''
From Tommaso: ``I am more committed than ever to help preserve and
protect this beautiful and unique ecosystem for future generations.''
From Elsa: ``Once the watershed faces sulfide-ore copper mining, it
will never be the same.''
From Joseph, who started this organization during his fight with
leukemia: ``What cancer has taught me for sure is that sometimes life
only gives you one chance to get things right, and this is our one
chance to protect the Boundary Waters.''
I urge my colleagues and others to join me in standing with these
young, inspiring people and to oppose the lease renewal.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment No. 56 Offered by Mr. Grothman
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 56
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement or enforce the rule entitled ``National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone'' published by the
Environmental Protection Agency in the Federal Register on
October 26, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 65292).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to deal
with the new rule entitled, ``National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Ozone,'' which affects several Wisconsin counties that I represent
along Lake Michigan.
Since the original CLEAR Act came into effect, the Environmental
Protection Agency has had the authority to regulate air emissions from
stationary and mobile sources. They have--and this is a good thing--
over time, progressively come up with new rules, making the standards
more and more stringent for the counties along Lake Michigan.
If you are ruled a nonattainment, it is a burden. It is a burden on
industry that has to spend substantial amounts of additional money
dealing with stricter and stricter standards, putting them at a
competitive disadvantage compared to other parts of the country and
other parts of the world. It is also
[[Page H6515]]
a difficult thing for individual motorists who find their cars have to
be repaired. It is very expensive.
Some of it is easy for people who have a high salary to deal with.
Maybe they don't have an older car. But I have always felt that some of
this disproportionately affects the people who are just struggling to
get a goal in life.
Therefore, when the EPA comes up with new standards, it is not
without effect. They need to come up with new standards they proposed a
couple of years ago.
The purpose of the amendment is to prevent them from spending money
promulgating these new standards so that our industries may have a
predictable situation and not be at a competitive disadvantage.
I should point out that, insofar as the counties along Lake Michigan
are ruled a nonattainment, it may be through no fault of their own. In
part, for historical reasons, they have monitored the ozone by placing
the monitors real near Lake Michigan, where there are artificially high
amounts of ozone.
Secondly, we have a situation where, insofar as there are pollutants
in the area, almost all of them come from south of Wisconsin, out of
Chicago or areas further south. As a practical matter, it can be almost
impossible, or even impossible, for these Wisconsin counties to deal
with these problems.
I have been working with the Environmental Protection Agency on this
issue. After introducing the amendment, I have continued to work with
the Environmental Protection Agency.
While I would like to deal with this problem statutorily, I realize
it would be probably better for all concerned if the Environmental
Protection Agency, as well as the business community in Wisconsin, and
I could reach a conclusion.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Johnson of Louisiana). The amendment is
withdrawn.
Amendment No. 57 Offered by Mr. Connolly
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 67
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to propose or issue any modification to any
regulation established in the final rule of the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency entitled ``Disposal of
Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities'' (80 Fed.
Reg. 21301 (April 17, 2015)).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, it is in the spirit of bipartisan,
commonsense, and modest safeguards that I sought to offer this
amendment that would protect the 2015 Federal coal ash rule.
Sadly, late last night, Acting EPA Administrator Wheeler helped
cement the toxic legacy of former Administrator Pruitt's reign over the
EPA by rolling back Federal coal ash standards, making this amendment
moot.
I remind my colleagues that the Obama-era Federal coal ash rule was
not rushed nor was it onerous. In fact, some think it didn't go far
enough. After years of debate, input from community and industry
stakeholders, and nearly half a million public comments, the Obama
administration finalized stringent but pragmatic Federal coal ash
regulations to deal with post-closure requirements, groundwater
monitoring, and public reporting.
The Pruitt proposal, which was announced only 5 months ago, included
very few hearings, very little outreach to the public, and last night
was finalized. That is warp speed, even for the Trump administration's
swamp-driven EPA antiregulation movement. So, no, the 2015 rule was not
rushed; the Pruitt rule most certainly was.
I also remind my colleagues of the catastrophic 2008 Kingston,
Tennessee, coal ash spill and why the Federal Government got in this
business to begin with. The Kingston spill was a devastating event. The
breach released 5 million cubic yards of coal ash, covering 300 acres
in toxic sludge, damaging and destroying homes and property, resulting
in $1.2 billion in cleanup costs, mostly borne by the public.
The lasting health consequences of that spill, some of which are
still unknown, are even worse. Residents still suffer from respiratory
illnesses and other side effects. Arsenic levels where the coal ash
runoff was disposed of were measured at 100 times, Mr. Chairman, higher
than the amount allowed under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The EPA has
already said such exposure significantly increases risk of cancers.
Earlier this year, lawyers filed suit in Federal court alleging that
more than 180 members of this Superfund cleanup now face severe health
effects, and 30 individuals have died from the cleanup of this toxic
waste.
These coal ash spills continue to occur across the country, Mr.
Chairman, including in my home State of Virginia, where a neighboring
State, North Carolina, had a coal ash pond that spilled more than
39,000 tons of toxic ash and 24 million gallons of wastewater into the
Dan River.
Though much of the public and media attention to this spill was
focused on North Carolina's regulatory shortcomings, Virginia was
exposed to the dangers of the coal ash spill. As a result, Virginia's
Department of Environmental Quality secured a $2.5 million settlement
against Duke Energy Carolinas, a fraction of the cost of the cleanup.
What has happened in Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee can
happen in any one of our communities that have or are near coal ash
impoundment ponds, which is why we must protect the 2015 Federal coal
ash rule. Unfortunately, that is not what happened last night.
What happened last night will weaken groundwater monitoring and
cleanup requirements without considering the widespread evidence of
significant groundwater contamination recently revealed by industry's
own data. Already, under the 2015 rule's reporting requirements, coal
ash waste sites across the country displayed evidence of contaminating
groundwater. Under Pruitt's proposal, that data may not even see the
light of day. We may not know. We are not going to monitor.
Surely, if there is anything we here in Congress can agree on, it is
the right of all people to have access to safe drinking water. As a
result of the 2015 Federal rules, States are working to close legacy
coal ash impoundments and protect water. Under the new finalized
agreement that modified that rule last night, that is now in jeopardy.
Because of that action, we are going to have to address coal ash in a
different way, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, because of that action, I will be forced to withdraw
this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
Amendment No. 58 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 68
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
limitation
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to require changes to an existing placer mining plan
of operations with regard to reclamation activities,
including revegetation, or to modify the bond requirements
for the mining operation.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from Alaska (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
=========================== NOTE ===========================
July 18, 2018, on page H6515, the following appeared: The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Alaska. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked
and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
The online version has been corrected to read: The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Alaska. Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr.
Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. YOUNG of
Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
========================= END NOTE =========================
[[Page H6516]]
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, Alaska has a long history of
placer mining operations, beginning in the early 1800s and continuing
through today. In fact, Alaska is one of the few places left, including
California, that has placer mining operations.
Most placer mining operations are small, but it as a robust industry
in Alaska, providing hundreds of jobs and contributing to the growth of
rural Alaskan communities.
The Bureau of Land Management's Fortymile plan, finalized in the last
days of the previous administration, upended decades of successful
placer mining land management in the Fortymile Planning Area.
The Fortymile plan imposed an overly complex regulatory framework on
small-scale placer mining operations as part of an ongoing effort to
discourage mining activity in the area.
The Fortymile miners previously agreed to environmental remediation
standards, and under the new plan proposed by the BLM, they are
expected to reclaim land that they have not mined and mitigate in ways
they did not agree to in their approved operation plans.
They are expected to remediate land that was impacted by placer
mining over 100 years ago, which adds to their financial burden and
makes it economically impractical for miners to continue their
operations.
This language has been included in the appropriations report language
by unanimous consent for the last 2 years. This is a necessary piece of
legislation and amendment to this bill to make sure the BLM recognizes
that miners do have obligations, they have met their obligations, and
the agencies have gone against them.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alaska has been
enlightening me more about placer mining, and I appreciate learning
more; but I have some questions that remain unanswered, so that is why
I have opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
{time} 1815
I understand that between 400 and 600 miles of BLM-managed streams
have historic or active placer mining impacts, and there is a legacy of
historic claim with reduction of ecosystem function.
Now, BLM continues various outreach activities, including public
meetings and interactions with individual miners, and is working with
industry to incorporate best management practices and new reclamation
techniques to accelerate stream recovery. I think that would be a good
thing.
Of course, reclamation activities may be necessary, and what they are
looking to do is to increase the cost to the miners, which the
gentleman is objecting to, if I understand correctly, in order to get
these streams and ecosystems back up to function.
This amendment would prohibit assessing the cost of the reclamation
areas to placer miners who are profiting from mineral extraction on
BLM-managed land.
I personally believe the American taxpayer should not shoulder the
burden of the restoration costs, that responsible parties should.
So the gentleman will probably be enlightening me over the next
couple of months on what he thinks might be able to be worked out so
that both parties feel that the burden is not over-burdensome, but
there is adequate reclamation going forward.
Mr. Chair, at this time I have to oppose the amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the Dean of the House's
amendment and his dedication to the sound management of natural
resources on behalf of constituents in his State.
Obviously, mining, and certainly placer mining, is unique to Alaska.
Alaska certainly has a unique history when it comes to mineral
extraction, probably more than any other State in the Union. It is
certainly a big part of Alaska's economy and the economy of the United
States. It is a mutually beneficial enterprise.
This amendment is similar to the ones adopted by voice vote in FY17
and FY18, so I certainly urge my colleagues to adopt it by a voice vote
yet again.
Mr. Chair, I support the amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the comments from the
chairman, and especially the comments from the gentlewoman who
understands and has opposition. I would like to remind everybody,
again, the reclamation was taking place, the mitigation was taking
place. They changed the rules after they agreed on it.
This is not a newly mined area. This has been mined before. In fact,
I just came from there on the Fourth of July. Chicken, Alaska. This is
where this mine is. Lots of mom-and-pop operations, retired people.
Chicken, Alaska. You know why they call it ``Chicken''? They couldn't
spell ``ptarmigan.'' That is why they call that small community that.
They are trying very hard, but very frankly, the BLM came in with
this plan. It is not working. In fact, they are spending very large
amounts of money trying to implement their reclamation concept when it
doesn't work. And I will challenge anybody to show that these miners
are not doing their best, but their proposal is trying to put them out
of business. I just think that is wrong.
If I thought they were doing some harm, I would definitely not be for
them. I have been there. I have seen it. I have watched what they are
trying to do. An agency, I think, has forgotten their role, and they
don't support mining. BLM is supposed to. And they have made it very
nearly impossible for, very frankly, a mom-and-pop operation to do so.
So I hope the gentlewoman can see her way to allowing this amendment
to this bill.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 59 Offered by Mr. Perry
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 59
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to give formal notification under, or prepare,
propose, implement, administer, or enforce any rule or
recommendation pursuant to, section 115 of the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7415).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I want to start by thanking Chairman Calvert
for this opportunity.
Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits the EPA from using funds for
actions pursuant to section 115 of the Clean Air Act. Section 115 of
the Clean Air Act allows the agency to mandate State emissions levels
to whatever level the agency deems appropriate if, in collaboration
with a foreign government, they determine endangerment and if the other
government has a reciprocal agreement to prevent or control these
emissions in their own nation.
Now, this is a backdoor provision that allows the agency to vastly
expand its regulatory authority and encroach on the constitutional
rights of the States to regulate their own energy sectors, based on the
actions of a foreign nation and the whims of the executive branch.
It is irresponsible to allow unelected bureaucrats at the EPA to
retain the ability to seize such an expansive authority. If the U.S.
government wants to pursue such a policy, one that, in my opinion, is
constitutionally suspect, it should be done through an explicit
congressional delegation of authority on a case-by-case basis.
A similar amendment has passed the House during the interior and
environmental appropriations packages for the
[[Page H6517]]
previous 2 fiscal years, Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to take
back our Article I authority and support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, it has been pointed out that this amendment
would block the EPA from regulating air pollution under section 115 of
the Clean Air Act, which deals with international pollution and allows
the United States to work with other countries on transboundary
pollution issues.
Being a State that borders Canada, we enter into agreements with them
many times to make sure that both of our countries are working together
in the best interest of their citizens.
This gentleman has offered this amendment for a number of years. It
used to be the amendment to torpedo the climate change agreement, but
President Trump took care of that, so I am a little unclear as to why
it is continuing to be offered.
Section 115 could be a tool in our toolbox for a path to achieve
reduction targets for greenhouse gases. The gentleman's amendment would
prohibit both the EPA and the Trump White House from even developing a
well-considered recommendation as to whether or not to use this
authority.
The President might, in some circumstances, want to work with another
country to address something. This to me is just the latest in a long
line of attacks on clean air and on the EPA's authority to respond to
the urgent threat of climate change.
A vote for this amendment is another vote, in my opinion, for climate
denial and to block action to curb carbon pollution that is driving our
dangerous climate change.
We see the hurricanes getting stronger, the wildfires raging
stronger, and now we are seeing the glaciers melt.
Mr. Chair, so I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and
to leave this tool in the toolbox for the Republican administrator at
EPA, as well as for the Republican person who is serving in the White
House. Let's leave them one tool in the toolbox in case they want to
take it out and use it.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, are we or are we not a sovereign Nation? I
think that most people would agree that we are, and, as such, we don't
take issue with the Congress, with the administration doing its job to
keep our air clean and to make treaties and provisions with other
nations.
But what we do take issue with is other nations working with,
potentially, this administration, any administration, that comes up
with an agreement not ratified by the American people, not ratified by
this body or the body on the other side of the Capitol to encroach upon
the constitutional rights of States to regulate their own environmental
emissions, as provided.
So it is not a question of whether we think that the climate isn't
changing, man has something to do with it, or whether it should be
regulated or how it should be regulated. It is a question of the
authority vested in the Constitution, in these bodies, and the ones
that are not.
It is not the place of unelected bureaucrats or individuals to make
an agreement with some other nation, then to impose itself on the
States individually. That is all we are saying here. It has passed on
numerous occasions because it is good.
The President got us out of the Paris climate agreement, but that
doesn't mean that some other administration in the future might make
another agreement that, yet again, the American people had no part in;
neither did this body. So this just ensures that if that is the case,
we have the protection that this body should provide.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT NO. 60 OFFERED BY MR. PEARCE
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 60
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
limitation on use of funds
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to treat the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse as an
endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, in the West, water is the key to
everything. One small family, the Gosses--I met them my first year in
Congress in 2003--has been fighting a 30-year, protracted battle with
the Forest Service over the water and access to the water.
They have been to two different courts, and the courts said, yes, the
water is theirs. The Forest Service responded to the first court by
fencing the water in. They said the 23 acres around it was their
acreage and they couldn't walk their cows to get to the water.
The Gosses went back to court, and found that the court said, okay,
they don't have a right to walk the cows on your 23 acres, but they do
have a right to move the water to the cows through a pipe or a ditch.
The Forest Service responded by electrifying the fence.
That is the kind of fight that we are in right now. A couple years
ago, I stood out over that water for about 2\1/2\ or 3 hours with the
Forest Service, the Gosses, and we all negotiated that the fences could
be brought in, that accommodations could be met, that we could find
habitat other places. And it was all agreed we would get to the water.
Then, subsequently, the Fish and Wildlife Service said, well, there
is a jumping mouse. They admitted themselves that the science was not
very good, that they had never seen one of the jumping mice there, but
they thought it might be there. They admitted that the science was very
terrible.
Despite the lack of any scientific evidence, despite everything, now
that area has been shut back off.
There are many areas where the jumping mouse could have a critical
habitat, but the agency just refuses to do it.
So my amendment is quite simple. It simply says that the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse cannot be listed as endangered or threatened until
they do some better science. It is a very straightforward amendment
where we are trying to find the balance between the Endangered Species
Act and the need for jobs, the need for an economy in the West. And
that revolves around open spaces, ranchland, water. It all comes
together in this one single issue.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment clearly would prohibit
Fish and Wildlife Service from implementing or enforcing the endangered
species listing of the New Mexico jumping mouse under the Endangered
Species Act. It would restrict the Service from offering critical
protections to preserve the species.
This amendment is harmful. Once a species is listed under the
Endangered Species Act, the role of Fish and Wildlife is primarily
permissive, helping parties comply with the act as they carry out their
activities.
Now, the majority of the habitat of the New Mexico jumping mouse is
on Federal land, and Fish and Wildlife is working with the Forest
Service to develop conservation measures that will protect the mouse
while allowing livestock grazing on Forest Service lands and assuring
adequate water for these cattle.
Since the endangered species listing, members of the livestock
community
[[Page H6518]]
have voiced concern about their impacts to people who recreate and make
their livelihood on Forest Service lands, which result from addressing
the needs of the mouse.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has established three working groups to
address these concerns, and they have come up with some creative
solutions, like establishing cattle lanes to assure cattle can have
access to water while protecting the vegetation necessary for the
survival of the mouse.
We have been in contact, and we find that there is a lot of
excitement and there is a lot of cooperation going on. So I would like
to work with the Service to make sure that we give this a full chance
of working.
{time} 1830
Under this amendment, the Service would not be able to continue to
recover this species, though all the Endangered Species Act
prohibitions would still apply. So the Service wouldn't be able to
continue to recover the species under this amendment, but all the other
activities of the Endangered Species Act would still apply. So the
Service wouldn't be able to work collaboratively any longer with
stakeholders to provide ESA compliance.
The Service has a statutory requirement to implement the Endangered
Species Act. Defunding the Agency's ability to fulfill these legal
requirements just makes the Agency and the Federal Government more
vulnerable to lawsuits, which is an unnecessary cost for American
taxpayers.
Additionally, this amendment would limit the Service from undertaking
a required status review of the subspecies or from initiating any
rulemaking to downlist or even delist this species, when it became
appropriate.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, with respect to the gentlewoman, if the
science underlying the decision was sound, and even the Agency itself
has admitted that the science was seriously flawed--if the stakes were
not so high--the entire listing of species would demand sound science.
So this is a serious problem throughout the West and throughout the
United States.
If it weren't a matter of being able to provide jobs and have
economies in these big rural areas of New Mexico, and there are no
other tax bases in those areas, so as we crowd out the ranchers, then
counties simply don't have the revenues to survive themselves.
If the stakes weren't these, then I would listen more closely to the
gentlewoman's arguments. But as it is, I just don't think that we can
sustain a decision like this. If the Fish and Wildlife Service had
showed up at that meeting where we found other critical habitat within
a couple of miles, it is just that critical habitat didn't block access
to this source of water, the only source of water in that section of
the ranch, and these are ranches that are on mountain ranges.
So you have the inability for cows to cross the mountain ranges over
to the next range. Also, it is miles in between some of the loading
stations and the water stations.
So these are things that compel me to say that we have to find
something different here. We want the Agency to reconsider it, to look
for better science, to look for better critical habitat.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman wasn't here earlier,
because he was attending to other work and now has come down to do his
amendment, but I have been making the case that this type of
authorizing language, these types of debates and discussions, should be
taking place in the authorizing committee where we can bring in the
Service, bring in the ranchers, find out what we need to do better to
create win-wins.
When we just come and put things on the appropriations bill, it
doesn't allow for that full vetting. It doesn't allow us that
opportunity to work with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee
after the authorizing committee is coming through and figuring out
where we need to adjust the budget, or what we need to do, or how we
need to do oversight to make sure that the Fish and Wildlife Service is
doing things that the gentleman is talking about.
So, an interesting thing, we got some information from the Service,
and the Service has been working with the research community to expand
the survey of the jumping mouse outside its currently known occupied
areas. The goal of this expansion effort is to document additional
populations. If they document additional populations, we could possibly
move toward downlisting or delisting the species, as appropriate. But
your amendment, unfortunately, would block that.
I would like to see this type of amendment be brought up under the
majority--the majority is the same in the Senate, and the majority is
in control of the White House--and have an opportunity to do the right
kind of oversight to make sure that, when we are doing legislation with
the best of intentions--if this survey were to come back and say that
we could downlist or delist the species, this amendment would prohibit
us from doing it.
So, at this time, I will oppose the gentleman's amendment. But I
thank him for bringing this attention to the floor, and I will look
more into it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, again, I respect the gentlewoman's opinions
and observations.
I would point out that these are 1907 water rights, which, in New
Mexico, water rights are given, and the earlier, the better. So they
can't get access because of the listing of a species. The science is
very flawed.
The Agency had the opportunity to go out to the forest with us. And
that day, they simply turned down the opportunity to meet with us. We
had the State forester, the head of the U.S. Forest Service of New
Mexico there. We had the regional forester. Everyone was there except
the people who really needed to be there. They refused our invitation.
I have been working on this single issue for 14 years myself, so it
is not like we haven't been discussing the issue at length.
Again, with that, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico
will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 61 will
not be offered.
Amendment No. 62 Offered by Mr. Pearce
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 62
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
limitation on use of funds
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act shall
be used to draft, propose, finalize, implement, enforce, or
carry out any rulemaking on the lesser prairie-chicken
(Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) under section 4 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, this issue is very similar to the last one.
As we approached the year 2013-2014, discussions were going on with
Fish and Wildlife Service about the potential listing either as
endangered or threatened of the lesser prairie chicken. We began to ask
for volunteers. We asked for farmers and ranchers, for oil and gas
companies, to work together to really come up with a collaborative plan
in order to avoid the listing for the lesser prairie chicken as either
threatened or endangered, and the industries responded very well.
[[Page H6519]]
To date, partners in that effort have contributed more than $64
million in enrollment and mitigation fees. They have agreed to conserve
more than 150,000 acres of habitat.
It was at that point that the Fish and Wildlife Service said, okay,
this is the best effort we have had in this collaboration nationwide.
They were all ecstatic. Then they turned around about a month later and
simply listed the lesser prairie chicken.
Again, the science was somewhat lacking in that. So, in 2015, a
Federal district court looked at the issue, and they vacated the
finding and said that the Fish and Wildlife Service took no account of
the ongoing conservation.
Keep in mind that the conservation efforts actually have been
working. Just this year, the number of birds is up from 30,000 to
39,000, so almost a 25 percent increase in the population. That is
exactly what these collaborative efforts were intended to do.
The court found that the Fish and Wildlife Service didn't conduct a
proper analysis and that the analysis they did was neither rigorous nor
valid.
So we are simply asking, in this amendment, that the lesser prairie
chicken not be listed, that it be delisted.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, in 2016, the Service officially removed
the lesser prairie chicken from the Federal list of endangered and
threatened wildlife in accordance with the September 2015 court order
vacating the Service's 2014 delisting determination, as the gentleman
pointed out.
Now, the administration action was taken in light of the decision not
to appeal the court's ruling. So they decided they weren't going to
appeal, but they were going to try to move forward.
So the Service is currently conducting a species status assessment to
characterize the current and future conditions of the lesser prairie
chicken. The assessment takes into account both the threats and
conservation efforts.
When I was in Nevada--I wasn't in your State, sir, but I was in
Nevada with one of our other colleagues--I saw amazing work that was
being done in collaboration, in fact, with an energy company, amazing
work being done.
The gentleman from Nevada was unable to produce one prairie chicken
for me to see that morning when we were out, but I believe that they
are there and that the conservation is working, in spite of the fact
that I didn't get to see one lesser prairie chicken.
But going back, the draft report was shared with peer and partner
reviews, and the Service is working with them to get feedback. If the
Service determines the listing of the lesser prairie chicken as
threatened or endangered is warranted, it is unlikely that any
rulemaking could be completed before 2018. So that would take 2 years,
in which Congress could take action.
I would like the Service to be able to continue working closely with
its partners, including State fish and wildlife agencies, the Western
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agency, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, industry, private landowners, and other partners, in the
interest of conserving the lesser prairie chicken.
So what the amendment does, and why I am objecting to it, it halts,
it stops, that transparent process that is working properly, that I saw
in the field working properly and providing ample opportunity for
public comment in how we could move forward.
So this amendment would make the decision. It would make the decision
final about the conservation of the species on the basis of what is
not, in my opinion, good science. So, at this time, I urge my
colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I hope all partners continue
to work together.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Estes).
Mr. ESTES of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support amendment
No. 62 to H.R. 6147. This amendment modernizes the Endangered Species
Act and recognizes voluntary conservation efforts to protect the lesser
prairie chicken.
In 2015, the species native to western Kansas was inaccurately listed
as threatened under the Endangered Species Act due to a multiyear
drought. Since then, Kansas farmers and ranchers have devoted millions
of dollars toward successful conservation through a range-wide plan.
This along with increased rainfall has led to an increase in the lesser
prairie chicken population.
However, recently, the push to list the species as endangered was
restarted, disregarding these voluntary efforts. I am glad this
amendment recognizes the private conservation efforts toward the lesser
prairie chicken. I cosponsored a similar measure in the farm bill, and
I appreciate Representatives Pearce and Marshall for offering this
amendment. I ask my colleagues to support it.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert), the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's
amendment.
In 2015, a Federal court ordered the Fish and Wildlife Service to
remove the lesser prairie chicken from the list of threatened and
endangered species. Environmental activists immediately petitioned the
Agency to list the species again, and the Agency, having been stung by
the court, concluded that the petition had merit.
Now the Agency is on the verge of listing the species yet again, and
it will end up in court again, where it will be delisted again. Rinse
and repeat.
Folks, how many times must we repeat this cycle before people start
working together? How much money must be wasted fighting each other
before we realize that our money is better spent actually helping the
species?
This amendment calls a timeout on the madness, at least for one
species. That is why I am urging an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, again, I would point out that the
collaboration was unprecedented across the Nation. What is going to
happen, if this collaboration fails, is that others are going to say,
okay, that collaboration process simply doesn't work.
Though, again, the courts, we are simply agreeing with the court
findings in the matter that the Fish and Wildlife Service failed to ask
very important questions and needs to reaccomplish the evaluation.
All in all, the States and local areas can and will pitch in to help
the species survive. But the heavy-handed approach coming from the Fish
and Wildlife Service simply, again, is going to kill jobs and kill the
potential of collaborative efforts.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico
will be postponed.
{time} 1845
AMENDMENT NO. 63 OFFERED BY MR. GOSAR
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 63
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to carry out Proclamation 7320 entitled
``Establishment of the Ironwood Forest National Monument''
issued by the President of the United States on June 9, 2000.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
[[Page H6520]]
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that supports
recreational shooting, K-12 education, and responsible energy
development by prohibiting funds for the Ironwood Forest National
Monument that was unilaterally designated under the Antiquities Act.
By looking at the map here, it is very clear that this monument was a
political land grab meant to prevent responsible energy and mineral
production, as well as multiple use on Federal lands. You couldn't
construct something even worse than that.
As you can see, the monument boundary starts in the right corner here
in the yellow and includes a large mineral deposit that includes
molybdenum, manganese, gold, and peripheral lead-zinc-silver.
The boundary then works its way up and also encircles the purple,
which is a significant copper deposit.
Continuing to move up to the green, the monument encompasses
significant amounts of lead, zinc, and silver veins.
Moving further up the map to the next yellow, the monument encircles
the entire Silver Bell Mine and operations, as well as other claims,
and also encompasses massive mineral deposits that contain molybdenum,
manganese, gold, and peripheral lead-zinc-silver.
Moving to the blue and to the top left of the monument, the boundary
almost entirely encircles two large veins that contain barium, lead,
and silver.
Essentially, all the colored areas on the map are off limits to new
energy and mineral exploration and development as a result of the
monument land grab.
Proponents claim the 188,619-acre monument is necessary to protect a
stand of ironwood trees covering 640 acres. Let me repeat that.
Proponents claim the 188,619-acre monument is necessary to protect a
stand of ironwood trees covering 640 acres.
Wow. If this unilateral monument designation was not political, it
would have had a significantly different boundary and been much
smaller.
There is nothing glamorous about this monument, and it was an
unconstitutional taking by then-Secretary Babbitt and the Clinton
administration, pointblank.
The Arizona Mining Association, Arizona Rock Products Association,
Arizona Mining Industry Gets Our Support, and the Southern Arizona
Business Coalition recently asked for this monument to be modified
significantly, stating: ``One-third of the area encompassed in the
Ironwood Monument is either State trust lands or privately owned. These
lands have effectively lost all economic potential as a result of the
national monument designation. . . . At the time of the designation,
the State government estimated that it would lose $100 million in
mineral rights. This does not include financial losses to private
companies or the lost employment potential for the mines.''
Asarco and Liberty Star Uranium and Metals Corporation of Tucson have
also asked for this monument to be significantly altered.
Further, the Ironwood Forest National Monument has caused harm to the
common schools beneficiary, K-12 education, by locking up these lands,
preventing multiple use, and stopping important revenues from flowing
to the educational coffers.
The Ironwood Forest National Monument enacted a complete ban on
recreational shooting. No utility corridors are allowed in the
monument. One-quarter of the monument can be closed to human entry for
over one-third of the year due to the presence of sheep, and nearly
10,000 acres of this monument are completely locked up at all times.
Further, the monument constitutes an attack on ranchers by negatively
impacting grazing.
This monument designation was an unconstitutional taking. Asarco
invested $72 million prior to the monument designation in hopes of
expanding the mine. They will likely invest several hundred million
more, create new jobs, and grow the economy if the mine is no longer
within the monument boundary.
The Arizona Game and Fish Department has not been able to fully
implement vital management activities within the monument boundaries,
including fencing to protect wildlife, predator control, law
enforcement wildlife investigations, and responses to illegal wildlife
activities.
In November, 24 Members of Congress sent President Trump a letter
recommending a recession of this monument amongst other monument
recommendations. That letter was endorsed by the American Farm Bureau
Federation, Americans for Responsible Recreation Access, the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association, and the Public Lands Council.
This amendment is endorsed by the American Exploration and Mining
Association, American Encore, AMIGOS, Asarco Mining, the Competitive
Enterprise Institute, Free Market America, the Arizona Farm Bureau,
Arizona Liberty, the Arizona Pork Council, Concerned Citizens for
America, Eagle Motorcycles, Rim Country Custom Rods, the Southern
Arizona Business Coalition, and Yavapai County Supervisor Jack R.
Smith, amongst others.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their time
and for their good work on this bill.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Arizona has expired.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment
that seeks to eliminate the Ironwood Forest National Monument, which is
in my district. The fact that it is in my district is secondary to the
callous disregard to the public input, the wishes of the people of
southern Arizona, the history of the area, and the biodiversity that
this amendment attacks.
This amendment effectively repeals the monument, returning the lands
back to multiple-use status, and opening them up for unfettered mining
and other harmful activities.
The sponsor of the legislation says that it is necessary to restore
access for recreational shooting and to generate revenue for local
schools, which I understand is a nod to the potential revenue garnered
from future mining operations that he envisions will pop up once the
monument is eliminated. He speaks for the mining industry, not
Arizonans, and certainly not my constituents.
A recent poll found that 73 percent of the people of Arizona oppose
eliminating protections for national monuments. Arizonans don't want
mining in their monuments, but that doesn't seem to matter to the
sponsor of this amendment, who will seemingly do whatever it takes to
roll back public lands protections.
I also take issue with the sponsor of the amendment's notion that
this amendment is about protecting access for recreational shooting.
When the monument was established, recreational shooting was allowed,
as it is on a large percentage of public lands. Unfortunately, some bad
actors forced local land managers to rethink access for the entire
shooting community. People were shooting up endangered cacti, leaving
bullet hole-ridden sofas and other trash throughout the desert. Those
were used as targets.
One of the great things about living in Tucson and southern Arizona
is that we are surrounded by public lands. Our protected desert
landscapes support wildlife and an abundant biodiversity to a wide
range of recreational activities.
Unfortunately, this amendment views these rare landscapes as
commodities, only available for extraction of resources and nothing
more. It is kind of a corporate radar approach and mentality to our
shared public assets and lands: use them, abuse them, discard them, and
see how much we can make out of them, in terms of money.
The spirit of conservation and preservation is very important to the
people of southern Arizona, and this is one of our special places. This
amendment is an attack on the people, its history, and our traditions
in southern Arizona. This amendment is an attack on the Antiquities
Act, and this amendment is an attack on our public lands.
This monument was created in the year 2000 by President Clinton after
the Pima County Board of Supervisors, the elected officials for the
county, petitioned for it; the Tohono O'odham Nation petitioned for it;
the people of southern Arizona petitioned for it; and that monument was
created.
[[Page H6521]]
The vice chairman of the Tohono O'odham Nation, Mr. Verlon Jose,
said, today: ``The Tohono O'odham have lived in this region since time
immemorial, and the Ironwood Forest National Monument has tremendous
cultural and historical importance. More than 200 important
archeological sites with remains from our ancestors are within the
monument, including two areas listed on the National Register of
Historic Places. We must oppose misguided efforts to withhold funding
from Ironwood, as it would have a devastating effect on efforts to
protect this national treasure.''
Mr. Chairman, the issue here today is about trying to relive and undo
a decision that was made with public participation, public input, the
support of local elected officials, the support of affected Tribes, and
do it for the specific interests of a mining company that feels they
have a right, even though it is a foreign-owned company, to come in on
our public lands, withdraw minerals, pay no royalties, and exploit the
area.
The Ironwood Forest National Monument is a landscape treasure. It is
a rare treasure, and it needs to be maintained. I urge a ``no'' vote on
this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Gosar).
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, look at how this monument is connected and
concocted. I think every which way. You couldn't make a worse
definition for a monument.
What it basically does is it goes to the far side to catch these two
minerals over here. Down here in the middle, it goes to the far edge.
This is called gerrymandering for minerals. This is a political bias
based upon takings from the people of Arizona.
Remember, I responded by saying: Listen, one-third of this
designation was private and State lands. These are part of the
dedication to the citizens of Arizona.
So when you look at this, this is the worst concocted. This is the
vanity of, actually, atrocities of monuments gone haywire.
Now, I am happy to work with the gentleman from southern Arizona to
rightsize this monument. I would be happy to do that. But this
concoction is a blatant exercise in overjurisdiction of the Federal
Government and misutilizing the Antiquities Act.
Mr. Chairman, I ask everybody to vote for my amendment.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 64 Offered by Mr. Posey
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 64
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used in contravention of Federal Acquisition Regulation
6.101(a) with respect to aviation helmets.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Posey) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, this is really pretty simple.
A constituent came to me with a problem concerning procurement for
aviation helmets. He has a manufacturing company here in the United
States, but he is not able to sell his helmets to the Department of the
Interior.
His helmets are not inferior. They are used by many industries. They
are used in many countries. But he is not on the approved list for
Federal agencies. Currently, the approved list includes only one
manufacturer.
My amendment will change this by providing additional options through
competition. The amendment requires compliance with the Federal
acquisition regulation policy that ensures a full and open process in
procuring aviation helmets.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
great amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 65 Offered by Mr. Denham
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 65
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this act may
be used by the Secretary to modify operations of the New
Melones reservoir authorized in section 10 of the Flood
Control Act of 1944 (58 Stat. 887, 901) for the purposes of
executing any component of the State Water Resources Control
Board of California's Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Denham) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prevents a huge water grab
by the State of California from farmers and communities in California's
Central Valley.
Under Sacramento's new plan, residents and farmers, alike, will
suffer skyrocketing rates that will cripple our local economy, our
farms, and our communities. Specifically, the State is mandating 40
percent of the water from Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced Rivers to be
flushed out into the ocean.
{time} 1900
Currently, we are losing about 25 percent of our current water being
flushed out by these mandated flows. This will increase it to 40
percent. This water feeds the Central Valley Project and the farmers
that rely on it. My community relies on this water for drinking, to
operate our local businesses, and for green power. This powers our
local communities.
The amendment prevents the State from robbing water from the Valley
and protects the New Melones reservoir from depletion. The New Melones
is a Federal facility that provides water for the Central Valley, and
generates hydropower for Californians.
The Bay-Delta Plan will drain significantly more water from New
Melones each year than it currently releases, leaving the reservoir
completely dry some years. The reservoir will be unable to meet its
water obligations to the federally-authorized Central Valley project,
which is critical to moving water all across the Central Valley. Lower
water levels will reduce the ability to generate power.
My amendment prevents Federal dollars from contributing to this
misguided plan, and the State from robbing our water. We need more
water in the valley, not less.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. This amendment seeks to block collaborative water
management in California. Such management is aimed at benefiting all
water users, cities, farmers, Tribes, the fishing industry, and
recreation interests.
Specifically, this amendment blocks Federal compliance with the
California Bay-Delta Plan, which is a plan being developed by the State
of California to prevent the collapse of California's iconic salmon
fisheries, and to preserve all beneficial use of the State's water.
[[Page H6522]]
After a decade of research and public outreach, the State government
is close to finalizing the Bay-Delta Plan. It will increase water flows
into the California Bay-Delta from the San Joaquin River. The increased
flows will improve salmon survival and prevent an unfolding ecological
crisis in the Bay-Delta, which is key for the environment for the Bay
and the Pacific Northwest fisheries, one of the most valuable and
unique ecosystems in the world.
While multiple factors have contributed to recent salmon declines, a
key factor has been unsustainably large water diversions from the
California rivers. The Bay-Delta seeks to address this by reducing
diversions and increasing river flow.
Mr. Chair, this obviously is an amendment which the author is very
passionate about. This also is something that the State of California
has engaged in.
This amendment, in my opinion, once again, should be something that
should be handled in an authorizing committee so the State of
California can come in, the gentleman and his proponents of what the
State is doing can have a discussion, and then the authorizers can work
their will and let the appropriators know whether or not to move
forward on this.
To do this amendment here shuts out a full, transparent discussion
about what should or should not take place in the State of California,
where the California citizens all across the State have had input with
their elected officials on how to move forward.
So this amendment seeks to undermine what appears to be a successful
implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan, which California has seen as a
necessary step toward preventing precious fishery declines and the loss
of thousands of jobs that rely on healthy fish and functioning
ecosystems.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock). The reservoir resides in his district.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California
for bringing this amendment to the floor.
The gentlewoman from Minnesota misses an important fact, and that is
that the current massive water diversions have done absolutely nothing
to improve salmon populations.
By taking those diversions to 40 percent unimpaired flow to the
ocean, in practical terms, this means that New Melones and Don Pedro
reservoirs in my district will be drained to their dead-pool levels
each fall.
It would destroy what's left of agriculture in California's Central
Valley, destroy the tourism these reservoirs attract in my region, and
create catastrophic water shortages in one of the most water-rich
regions of the Nation.
We don't build these reservoirs to dump water into the ocean. We
build them to store surplus water from wet years so that we have it in
dry ones.
This is insanity. It is the result of years of greens-gone-wild
radicalism in California. This amendment assures that the Federal
Government will not participate in such nonsense.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. LaMalfa).
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, in rising to support my colleague, Mr.
Denham, on this amendment, I note that the California State Water Board
is contemplating their next water grab, and how disconnected from
reality these regulators are.
In the latest plan, they want to take 40 percent of the flows from
San Joaquin. Concurrently, they have a pending proposal to also
increase the volume of flows from the Sacramento River, in my region,
that washes out to the ocean, all under the guise, the failing guise of
protecting fish. They are contemplating 45 to 65 percent of unimpeded
flow.
We already know that when it comes to protectin people or fish,
Sacramento always decides to choose the latter. This plan defies even
basic common sense or fairness.
Instead, it relies on questionable science to impose arbitrary
restrictions, with no solutions to address the loss of habitat for
native species, or even the predators in the delta, which we already
know to be a major threat to the fish population. Up to 90 percent of
the affected species are devoured by these predator fish.
It offers no recourse for the devastating impact it will have on jobs
and local economies.
I would like to remind the regulators, California voters
overwhelmingly supported the effort to direct $2.7 billion for water
storage projects, recognizing the need to invest in infrastructure such
as Sites Reservoir.
If that project already existed, the reservoir would be nearly full
right now, providing enough water to serve 3.6 million Californians for
an entire year, and relieve the stress on the Sacramento and Central
Valley water systems.
Mr. Chair, we need some common sense. I urge my colleagues to support
Mr. Denham's amendment.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to how much time both
sides have?
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Comer). The gentlewoman from Minnesota has 2\1/
2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 1 minute
remaining.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McNerney).
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, I understand my colleague's position on
this. Water is a scarce commodity. You want to have access to water.
You want to plant your trees. You want to feed your stocks and all
that.
But what you are not saying is what is going to happen if you
continue to take more water from the delta. The delta is a finite water
supply. The more you take water from the delta, the more saltwater from
the ocean comes in and poisons our facilities, our docks, our fishing,
it changes the whole environment. And we are going to cost jobs if you
do that, so it is really a balance.
Now, I think it is okay to work together to find a proper amount of
water to ship out and a proper amount of water to stay in the delta.
When we have bigger rain events, the water pushes the saltwater back
out toward the ocean. It clears out water a little bit.
So, I mean, it is not like we are just trying to save water to hurt
you guys. That is not what is going on here. We have our own interests
to take care of.
This is always a fight. What we need to do is sit down and compromise
and find some way to get through this so that we don't end up hurting
one another, which is what happens.
Again, I understand the position you are in. I understand the need
for water. California is a dry State. We have years and years of
drought. But continuing to demand access to water when there is only a
finite supply, every year you want more, that is not going to work. It
is just not going to work.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, our State Water Board is out of control.
Our State Water Board is involved in a political operation to remove
farming out of the State of California.
This amendment would attempt to put a stop to the reckless State plan
and continue the current New Melones operations. This is something we
need to act on and act on immediately. We are in crisis.
I am a strong advocate for Mr. Denham's position and, certainly, for
his constituents, and I am glad to support this amendment.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, at this time I will make my remarks to
close.
This amendment is an attempt to get the Congress involved in
undermining a State's rights and its prerogatives.
The Federal Government should be assisting California in ways to
restore the State's rivers and recover needed fisheries, instead of
trying to interfere with obstruction from Washington. I often hear my
colleagues say that Washington should get out of the way. In this case,
I totally agree.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chair, the gentleman talks about a compromise. I will
not compromise and allow our people to go without water, people that
[[Page H6523]]
have no drinking water, only to have FEMA come in and bring bottled
water. I will not shut down our farms. That is not a compromise.
This is a Federal project that has our water for our community that
now they want to double the amount that goes out to the ocean. It is a
waste. It is harmful to our community. It will shut down our
agriculture, and it will leave people without potable drinking water.
This is insanity to try to say that you are saving the fish when
there is no science. This will harm the fish. Without water, without
green power, and without cold water, you will kill the very fish that
you are trying to save.
I believe that our farms deserve this, our communities deserve this,
and our people must have it to survive.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 66 Offered by Mr. Abraham
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 66
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
limitation on use of funds to restrict certain use of genetically
modified crops in national wildlife refuges
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enforce any prohibition or limitation of any kind
in a cooperative agreement referred to in section 29.2 of
title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, on the planting of
genetically modified crops in a national wildlife refuge.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Abraham) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, the Fish and Wildlife Service regularly
enters into cooperative agricultural agreement with farmers to plant
and raise crops on farm fields on national wildlife refuge land. Those
agreements require that the farmers leave a portion of that crop
standing over the winter in order to provide cover and forage for
wildlife. In the spring, those farmers plow up everything and start all
over again.
In 2014, the Fish and Wildlife Service began to prevent farmers who
entered into these agreements from planting GMO seed. This action was
not based on facts, it was not on rules, and this action is harmful to
both wildlife and to the farmers who are providing that food and cover.
GMO crops are proven safe. They use less water. They use less
pesticides. They use less fertilizer, and they feed much of the world,
both humans and animals.
Wildlife groups like Ducks Unlimited support this amendment, and I
ask for your support, too.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
{time} 1915
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, this amendment clearly would prohibit Fish
and Wildlife Service from enforcing limitations or prohibitions on the
use of genetically modified seed in commercial agricultural operations
conducted on national wildlife refuges.
As the gentleman pointed out, in 2014, a decision to curtail the use
of genetically modified seeds or crops, GMOs, for use on National
Wildlife Refuge System lands by 2016 grew out of several years of
litigation successfully brought against U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
During the term of the litigation, the courts did not allow the use
of GMOs. As a result of this restriction, the refuges found that they
were able to meet their biological objectives and accomplish their
wildlife management purposes without the use of GMOs and that GMO use
could be curtailed nationwide.
This approach avoids costly litigation for the taxpayers and the need
for additional site-specific compatibility determinations and NEPA
analysis of GMO crops. It is a saver of the taxpayers' dollars.
Fish and Wildlife Service has proven over several years that they can
accomplish their wildlife objectives without the use of GMOs. However,
Fish and Wildlife policy on biological diversity, integrity, and
environmental health does allow for the use of GMOs when it is
essential to accomplish the refuge purposes and is approved by the
Regional Refuge Chief.
This amendment jeopardizes the current FWS policy that is based on
years of experience. We should be supporting Fish and Wildlife Service
and its efforts, not blocking the agency from doing its job.
Mr. Chair, once again, this is the appropriations portion of Fish and
Wildlife. This clearly is something that has gone through the court
system, that has gone through authorization. It is a policy discussion
and it should be done in the policy committee. It should be done where
people can come in and testify and have their debate in full
transparency. It should be done then and brought to the floor.
Mr. Chair, the majority controls the House, the Senate, and the White
House. I would encourage the author of the amendment to not use the
appropriation bills to put more riders on.
The gentleman may or may not be aware, Mr. Chair, that the Senate has
no riders on its bill at all. And I believe that this could really put
the chairman and myself, as the ranking member, possibly at a
disadvantage when we go to reallocate those precious dollars, with all
the requests that we have had on the floor over the past 2 days, when
we go into doing what our job is, the appropriations.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.
The National Academy of Sciences was established by Congress in 1863
in the midst of the Civil War to provide independent, objective advice
to the Nation on matters related to science and technology.
The Academy, in 2016, released a comprehensive literature review on
the science of genetically engineered crops, or GMOs as they are
commonly referred to. The Academy found zero scientific evidence that
GMOs are any more or any less safe for human consumption and the
environment than organisms modified by more traditional genetic
methods, like selective breeding.
This amendment blocks an outdated policy made during the last
administration which pandered to extreme environmental groups by
feeding into the unfounded fears of GMOs. This amendment is an
opportunity to rise above fear-mongering and make sound policy based on
science and rationality.
Mr. Chair, let's do the right thing and vote ``aye.''
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I just ask that my colleagues support this
commonsense amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Abraham).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 67 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 67
printed in House Report 115-830.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to eliminate the Urban Wildlife Refuge Partnership.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is prohibiting the use of
appropriated funds to eliminate the Urban Wildlife Refuge Partnership,
or
[[Page H6524]]
programs, that are for the reforestation of urban areas. In fact, I
celebrate and support the increase in funding. This amendment is
particularly helpful, I hope, to create the legislative history of the
importance of the urban reforestation program.
Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member as well as the chairman of this
committee for recognizing the importance of urban reforestation.
This amendment emphasizes the importance of the Urban Wildlife Refuge
Partnership in urban forests and preserves our ability to return urban
areas to healthy and safe living environments for our children. I have
offered similar amendments because I want an ongoing creation of
legislative history to ensure that this program is kept.
In the past 30 years alone, we have lost 30 percent of all of our
urban trees, a loss of over 600 million trees. Eighty percent of the
American population lives in dense quarters of the city. Reforestation
programs return a tool of nature to concrete areas that can help remove
air pollution, filter out chemicals and agricultural waste in water,
and save communities millions of dollars in stormwater management
costs.
I have certainly seen the devastation of droughts right in large
cities. In particular, Houston, a couple years ago, lost many, many
trees in a severe drought that we experienced over the summer. It took
many community investors--when I say that, nonprofits--and Federal
dollars to restore green life to Houston.
We know that asthma is on the rise. In people below the Federal
poverty threshold, we see asthma increasing. Asthma comes when children
have to be subjected to polluted air.
Some of the reasons individuals at lower income may have increased
risk of asthma are increased exposure to indoor and outdoor pollutants,
cigarette smoking, secondhand smoke exposure, and nearby industrial
pollutants and highway traffic.
The good news is that trees provide the source of oxygen that is so
necessary, and it comes about through a scientific process that I will
discuss a little bit later.
We have a headline here from Science Daily that says: ``Cities and
Communities in the U.S. Losing 36 Million Trees a Year.''
And then another headline: ``Researchers Suggest Reforestation Around
Urban Areas to Reduce Ozone Levels,'' which enhances, creates, makes
worse the asthma that many of our children suffer from.
Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak in support of my amendment to
Division A of H.R. 6147, the Interior and Environment Appropriations
Act for Fiscal Year 2019 and to commend Chairman Calvert and Ranking
Member McCollum for their leadership in shepherding this bill through
the legislative process.
Among other agencies, this legislation funds the U.S. Forest Service,
the National Park System, and the Smithsonian Institution, which
operates our national museums including the National Zoo.
Mr. Chair, my amendment is simple but it sends a very important
message from the Congress of the United States.
The Jackson Lee Amendment emphasizes the importance of Urban Wildlife
Refuge Partnerships and urban forests, and preserves our ability to
return urban areas to healthy and safe living environments for our
children.
Similar amendments were offered and accepted in the Interior and
Environment Appropriations Acts for Fiscal Year 2018 (H.R. 3354),
Fiscal Year 2017 (H.R. 5538), Fiscal Year 2016 (H.R. 2822), Fiscal Year
2008 (H.R. 2643), and Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5386), and were adopted by
voice vote.
Mr. Chair, surveys indicate that some urban forests are in serious
danger.
In the past 30 years alone, we have lost 30 percent of all our urban
trees--a loss of over 600 million trees.
Eighty percent of the American population lives in the dense quarters
of a city.
Reforestation programs return a tool of nature to a concrete area
that can help to remove air pollution, filter out chemicals and
agricultural waste in water, and save communities millions of dollars
in storm water management costs.
I have certainly seen neighborhoods in Houston benefit from urban
reforestation.
In addition, havens of green in the middle of a city can have
beneficial effects on a community's health, both physical and
psychological, as well as increase property value of surrounding real
estate.
Reforestation of cities is an innovative way of combating urban
sprawl and deterioration.
Mr. Chair, a real commitment to enhancing our environment involves
both the protection of existing natural resources and active support
for restoration and improvement projects.
Several years ago, American Forests, a leading conservation group,
estimated that the tree cover lost in the greater Washington
metropolitan area from 1973 to 1997 resulted in an additional 540
million cubic feet of storm water runoff annually, which would have
taken more than $1 billion in storm water control facilities to manage.
Trees breathe in carbon dioxide, and produce oxygen.
People breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.
A typical person consumes about 38 pounds of oxygen per year.
A healthy tree, say a 32 ft tall ash tree, can produce about 260 lb
of oxygen annually--two trees supply the oxygen needs of a person for a
year.
Trees help reduce pollution by capturing particulates like dust and
pollen with their leaves.
A mature tree absorbs from 120 to 240 pounds of the small particles
and gases of air pollution.
Trees help combat the effects of ``greenhouse'' gases, the increased
carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels that is causing our
atmosphere to ``heat up.''
Trees help cool down the overall city environment by shading asphalt,
concrete and metal surfaces.
Buildings and paving in city centers create a heat-island effect.
A mature tree canopy reduces air temperatures by about 5-10 degrees
Fahrenheit.
A 25 foot tree reduces annual heating and cooling costs of a typical
residence by 8 to 12 percent, producing an average annual savings of
$120 per American household.
Proper tree plantings around buildings can slow winter winds, and
reduce annual energy use for home heating by 4-22 percent.
Mr. Chair, trees play a vital role in making our cities more
sustainable and more livable.
The Jackson Lee Amendment simply provides for continued support to
programs like Urban Wildlife Refuge Partnerships that reforest our
urban areas.
For all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the Jackson
Lee Amendment and thank Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum
for their courtesies, consideration, and very fine work in putting
together this legislation.
[From Science Daily, Apr. 18, 2018]
Cities and Communities in the US Losing 36 Million Trees a Year
Source: USDA Forest Service--Northern Research Station
Summary: Nationally, urban/community tree cover declined
from 42.9 percent to 42.2 percent between 2009-2014. This
translates to losing an estimated 36 million trees or
approximately 175,000 acres of tree cover annually.
Scientists with the USDA Forest Service estimate that
between 2009 and 2014, tree cover in the Nation's urban/
community areas declined by 0.7 percent, which translates to
losing an estimated 36 million trees or approximately 175,000
acres of tree cover annually. Pavement and other impervious
cover increased at a rate of about 167,000 acres a year
during the same period, according to research by USDA Forest
Service scientists.
Nationally, urban/community tree cover declined from 42.9
percent to 42.2 percent. Twenty-three states had a
statistically significant decrease in tree cover, with a
total of 45 states showing a net decline. Trees improve air
and water quality, reduce summer energy costs by cooling
homes, reduce noise, mitigate runoff and flooding, and
enhance human health and well-being, making them important to
human health and urban and community infrastructure. The
annual benefits derived from U.S. urban forests due to air
pollution removal, carbon sequestration, and lowered building
energy use and consequent altered power plant emissions are
estimated at $18 billion.
The study by Dave Nowak and Eric Greenfield of the USDA
Forest Service's Northern Research Station, ``Declining urban
and community tree cover in the United States,'' was
published in the journal Urban Forestry and Urban Greening.
A table showing tree cover and impervious cover change by
state is available at: https://www.nrs.fsis.fed.us/news/
release/resources/cities-communities-losing-tree-cover/
``Urban forests are a vital part of the nation's
landscape,'' said Tony Ferguson, Director of the Forest
Service's Northern Research Station and the Forest Products
Laboratory. ``Forest Service research puts knowledge and
tools into the hands of urban forest managers that supports
stewardship and the wise allocation of resources.''
States or districts with the greatest annual net percent
loss in urban/community tree cover were Rhode Island and the
District of Columbia (minus 0.44 percent), Georgia (minus
0.40 percent), and Alabama and Nebraska (minus 0.32 percent
each). States with the greatest annual net loss in tree cover
were Georgia (minus 18,830 acre/year), Florida (minus 18,060
acre/year) and Alabama (minus 12,890 acre/year).
[[Page H6525]]
Three states--Mississippi, Montana and New Mexico--had
slight, nonsignificant increases in urban/community tree
cover. Nationally, Maine has the highest percent tree cover
in urban/community areas with 68 percent tree cover. At 10
percent tree cover, North Dakota ranked as having the lowest
percent urban/community tree cover.
``Urban forests are an important resource,'' said Nowak.
``Urban foresters, planners and decision-makers need to
understand trends in urban forests so they can develop and
maintain sufficient levels of tree cover--and the
accompanying forest benefits--for current and future
generations of citizens.''
As of 2010, urban land occupied 3 percent, or 68 million
acres, of the United States, while urban/community land
occupied just over 6 percent of the United States, or 141
million acres.
Overall, urban/community impervious cover had a
statistically significant increase from 14.5 percent to 15.1
percent (an increase of o.6 percent), States with the
greatest annual net percent increase in impervious cover were
Delaware (0.28 percent), Iowa (0.26 percent), and Colorado,
Kansas and Ohio (0.24 percent each). States with the greatest
annual net increase in impervious cover were Texas (17,590
acre/year), Florida (13,900 acre/year) and Ohio (8,670 acre/
year).
____
[From Phys.org, Sept. 9, 2014]
Researchers Suggest Reforestation Around Urban Areas to Reduce Ozone
Levels
(By Bob Yirka)
A team of research conservationists with members from
several universities in the U.S. is suggesting in a paper
they've had published in Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, that urban areas could benefit by investing in
cost effective reforestation efforts around urban areas that
currently suffer from high ozone levels. Planting trees, they
suggest could help cities bring those levels down.
The researchers note that despite aggressive efforts by
many metropolitan areas to lower ozone levels in ground level
air, levels remain high, causing the populations that live in
them to live with an increased risk of health problems--prior
research has indicated that as many as 152,000 premature
deaths each year can be attributed to the damage ozone
inflicts on lungs. Current efforts to combat ozone levels are
aimed at the source, factory emissions, etc. Laws limiting
emissions have not kept up with growth however, leading to
increases in ozone levels.
The researchers suggest a different approach--remove the
ozone by planting trees. They suggest that land be purchased
on the outskirts of cities with high ozone levels to be
converted to forest--trees they note, remove both ozone, and
one of its precursors.
To bolster their point, the researchers looked at the
Houston metro area in Texas, a part of the country with
consistently high ozone levels. Land that is currently used
for agriculture on the outskirts, they claim, could be
purchased and replanted with trees, creating a 1.5-square-
mile forest. They estimate that over a 30 year period, the
reforested area could reduce ozone and precursors in ground-
level air by 310 tons. They also note that if fast growing
trees were planted, timber harvests could help make up
initial outlays and loss of local revenue from agricultural
products.
The researchers also plotted potential targets on a map of
the U.S., highlighting areas where reforestation would likely
do the most good--along the 1-95 corridor in the northeast,
for example, and around Chicago, Detroit and many parts of
California. The team concludes by noting that if something
isn't done, the problem of ozone pollution is only likely to
get worse in the face of both continued growth and as global
warming exacerbates the problem.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, although the base bill already continues to
support this program at the fiscal year 2018 level, I am happy to
accept this amendment, as I have for the past 2 years.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from California.
As I indicated, I think that creating the additional legislative
history of the importance of this particular program is what I hope
will strengthen it.
May I ask, Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 2 minutes remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the ranking member, to discuss the urban
reforestation program, and I thank her for her leadership.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for this
opportunity. I also thank the chairman of our subcommittee for
accepting the amendment.
Mr. Chair, many cities don't have urban wildlife refuges nearby, and
to address that challenge, the Service has 21 Urban Wildlife Refuge
Partnerships spanning the country. These partnerships have nourished an
appreciation of wildlife conservation to new audiences, and I have seen
them in action, empowering local community organizations to inspire
conservation in local parks and other natural areas.
I just want to list a few of these urban partnerships that can be
found: New Haven; Chicago; Houston; Providence; Seattle; Baltimore; Los
Angeles; Albuquerque; Santa Barbara; Yonkers; New Orleans; Denver;
Philadelphia; Atlanta; Springfield, Massachusetts; Anchorage;
Cincinnati; the twin cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, St. Paul being
my hometown; Elizabeth, New Jersey; West Palm Beach, Florida; San Juan;
and Alamo, Texas.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to learn more about this program.
Once again, I thank the gentlewoman for the time, and I thank
Chairman Calvert for accepting this amendment.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chair, let me conclude my remarks by saying I have certainly seen
neighborhoods in Houston benefit from urban reforestation. In addition,
havens of green in the middle of a city can have beneficial effects on
a community's health, both physical and psychological, as well as
increased property values of surrounding real estate. But when you have
had a drought, you know how important this program is. Reforestation of
cities is an innovative way of combating urban sprawl and
deterioration.
Finally, let me say, photosynthesis, how many of us remember that in
our classrooms? I love that process. That happens in plants, generally
involves the green pigment chlorophyll, and generates oxygen as a
byproduct, cleaning the air. That is what these programs do in urban
America.
Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 68 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 68
printed in House Report 115-830.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to limit outreach programs administered by the
Smithsonian Institution.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member and the
chairman of this committee for considering my amendment.
My amendment is prohibiting the use of appropriated funds to limit
museum outreach programs administered by the Smithsonian Institution.
Again, for programs like this, this is to advocate and create the
legislative history of the importance of these programs, and I am glad
to have this amendment presented to the Congress at this time.
Mr. Chair, in order to fulfill the Smithsonian's mission--the
increase and diffusion of knowledge--the Smithsonian seeks to serve an
even greater audience, and this has come about over the years by
bringing the Smithsonian to enclaves of communities who otherwise would
be deprived of the vast amount of cultural history offered by the
Smithsonian.
The Smithsonian's outreach program serves millions of Americans,
thousands of communities, and hundreds of institutions in all 50 States
through loans of objects, traveling exhibitions,
[[Page H6526]]
and sharing of educational resources via publications, lectures,
presentations, training programs, and websites.
Let me say from personal experience, one of my predecessors, the
Honorable Mickey Leland, that many people know died in an airplane
going into an Ethiopian mountain trying to bring food to starving
people in Eritrea and Ethiopia, had introduced the first bill for a
museum dealing with slave history. He did not live to see that
legislation go forward, but later, John Lewis introduced the
legislation to create the Smithsonian Museum of African American
History and Culture.
We have it today, and it is a museum that has seen more people attend
it, and the outreach is crucial: the board members, who are so proud to
be a part of it, and the Congressional Black Caucus, that was the
anchor of passing this legislation. Now we have an outstanding exhibit
on Oprah Winfrey, and all are there to see this historic figure and
many others.
It is important that the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum and many
others have the opportunity to reach out to Americans and let them know
of these very special resources, these assets that are here.
So this is a very important emphasis to have, and I would like to
make sure that we continue to do it robustly so that more Americans can
know their history.
Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak in support of my amendment to
Division A of H.R. 6147, the ``Interior and Environment Appropriations
Act for Fiscal Year 2019.''
Let me also thank Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum for
their leadership in shepherding this bill to the floor.
Among other agencies, this legislation funds the Smithsonian
Institution, which operates our national museums, including the Air and
Space Museum; the Museum of African Art; the Museum of the American
Indian; and the National Portrait Gallery.
The Smithsonian also operates another national treasure: the National
Zoo.
Mr. Chair, my amendment is simple but it sends a very important
message from the Congress of the United States.
The Jackson Lee amendment simply provides that:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to limit outreach programs administered by the
Smithsonian Institution.
This amendment is identical to amendments I offered to the Interior
and Environment Appropriations Acts for FY2017 (H.R. 3354) and FY2016
(H.R. 2822) that were approved by voice vote.
Mr. Chair, the Smithsonian's outreach programs bring Smithsonian
scholars in art, history and science out of ``the nation's attic'' and
into their own backyard.
Each year, millions of Americans visit the Smithsonian in Washington,
D.C.
But in order to fulfill the Smithsonian's mission, ``the increase and
diffusion of knowledge,'' the Smithsonian seeks to serve an even
greater audience by bringing the Smithsonian to enclaves of communities
who otherwise would be deprived of the vast amount of cultural history
offered by the Smithsonian.
The Smithsonian's outreach programs serve millions of Americans,
thousands of communities, and hundreds of institutions in all 50
states, through loans of objects, traveling exhibitions, and sharing of
educational resources via publications, lectures and presentations,
training programs, and websites.
Smithsonian outreach programs work in close cooperation with
Smithsonian museums and research centers, as well as with 144 affiliate
institutions and others across the nation.
The Smithsonian's outreach activities support community-based
cultural and educational organizations around the country.
They ensure a vital, recurring, and high-impact Smithsonian presence
in all 50 states through the provision of traveling exhibitions and a
network of affiliations.
Smithsonian outreach programs increase connections between the
Institution and targeted audiences (African American, Asian American,
Latino, Native American, and new American) and provide kindergarten
through college-age museum education and outreach opportunities.
These outreach programs enhance K-12 science education programs,
facilitate the Smithsonian's scholarly interactions with students and
scholars at universities, museums, and other research institutions; and
disseminate results related to the research and collections strengths
of the Institution.
The programs that provide the critical mass of Smithsonian outreach
activity are:
1. the Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service (SITES);
2. the Smithsonian Affiliations, the Smithsonian Center for Education
and Museum Studies (SCEMS);
3. National Science Resources Center (NSRC);
4. the Smithsonian Institution Press (SIP);
5. the Office of Fellowships (OF); and
6. the Smithsonian Associates (TSA), which receives no federal
funding.
To achieve the goal of increasing public engagement, SITES directs
some of its federal resources to develop Smithsonian Across America: A
Celebration of National Pride.
This ``mobile museum,'' which will feature Smithsonian artifacts from
the most iconic (presidential portraits, historic American flags, Civil
War records, astronaut uniforms, etc.) to the simplest items of
everyday life (family quilts, prairie schoolhouse furnishings, historic
lunch boxes, multilingual store front and street signs, etc.), has been
a long-standing organizational priority of the Smithsonian.
SITES ``mobile museum'' is the only traveling exhibit format able to
guarantee audience growth and expanded geographic distribution during
sustained periods of economic retrenchment, but also because it is
imperative for the many exhibitors nationwide who are struggling
financially yet eager to participate in Smithsonian outreach.
For communities still struggling to fully recover from the economic
downturn, the ability of museums to present temporary exhibitions, the
``mobile museum'' promises to answer an ever-growing demand for
Smithsonian shows in the field.
A single, conventional SITES exhibit can reach a maximum of 12
locations over a two- to three-year period.
In contrast, a ``mobile museum'' exhibit can visit up to three venues
per week in the course of only one year, at no cost to the host
institution or community.
The net result is an increase by 150 in the number of outreach
locations to which SITES shows can travel annually.
And in addition to its flexibility in making short-term stops in
cities and towns from coast-to-coast, a ``mobile museum'' has the
advantage of being able to frequent the very locations where people
live, work, and take part in leisure time activities.
By establishing an exhibit presence in settings like these, SITES
will not only increase its annual visitor participation by 1 million,
but also advance a key Smithsonian performance objective: to develop
exhibit approaches that address diverse audiences, including population
groups not always affiliated with mainstream cultural institutions.
SITES also will be the public exhibitions' face of the Smithsonian's
National Museum of African American History and Culture, as that new
Museum comes online.
Providing national access to projects that will introduce the
American public to the Museum's mission, SITES in FY 2008 will tour
such stirring exhibitions as NASA ART: 50 Years of Exploration; 381
Days: The Montgomery Bus Boycott Story; Beyond: Visions of Planetary
Landscapes; The Way We Worked: Photographs from the National Archives;
and More Than Words: Illustrated Letters from the Smithsonian's
Archives of American Art.
To meet the growing demand among smaller community and ethnic museums
for an exhibition celebrating the Latino experience, SITES provided a
scaled-down version of the National Museum of American History's 4,000-
square-foot exhibition about legendary entertainer Celia Cruz.
Two 1,500-square-foot exhibitions, one about Crow Indian history and
the other on basket traditions, will give Smithsonian visitors beyond
Washington a taste of the Institution's critically acclaimed National
Museum of the American Indian.
Two more exhibits, ``In Plane View'' and ``Earth from Space,''
provided visitors an opportunity to experience the Smithsonian's
recently opened, expansive National Air and Space Museum Udvar-Hazy
Center.
For almost 30 years, The Smithsonian Associates--the highly regarded
educational arm of the Smithsonian Institution--has arranged Scholars
in the Schools programs.
Through this tremendously successful and well-received educational
outreach program, the Smithsonian shares its staff--hundreds of experts
in art, history and science--with the national community at a local
level.
The mission of Smithsonian Affiliations is to build a strong national
network of museums and educational organizations in order to establish
active and engaging relationships with communities throughout the
country.
There are currently 138 affiliates located in the United States,
Puerto Rico, and Panama.
By working with museums of diverse subject areas and scholarly
disciplines, both emerging and well-established, Smithsonian
Affiliations is building partnerships through which audiences and
visitors everywhere will be able to share in the great wealth of the
Smithsonian while building capacity and expertise in local communities.
[[Page H6527]]
The National Science Resources Center (NSRC) strives to increase the
number of ethnically diverse students participating in effective
science programs based on NSRC products and services.
The Center develops and implements a national outreach strategy that
will increase the number of school districts (currently more than 800)
that are implementing NSRC K-8 programs.
The NSRC is striving to further enhance its program activity with a
newly developed scientific outreach program introducing communities and
school districts to science through literacy initiatives.
In addition, through the building of the multicultural Alliance
Initiative, the Smithsonian's outreach programs seek to develop new
approaches to enable the public to gain access to Smithsonian
collections, research, education, and public programs that reflect the
diversity of the American people, including underserved audiences of
ethnic populations and persons with disabilities.
For all these reasons, Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of the Jackson Lee
Amendment and thank Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum for
their courtesies, consideration, and very fine work in putting together
this excellent legislation.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1930
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise to approve the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I have no objection to the gentlewoman's
amendment. It was accepted last year by voice vote, and I encourage
adoption of the gentlewoman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the ranking member, and thank her again for
her leadership.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from
Texas for the time, and I would like to commend the chairman of the
subcommittee for accepting this amendment.
The chairman and I know the importance of museums and the wealth of
knowledge that they share with the American public. And when we have
the Smithsonian Day at our hearings, when the chairman puts the gavel
down, everybody is in attendance to see what the Smithsonian is going
to bring to the history lesson that it is going to share with the
Members of our committee.
We are inspired, just as these museums inspire people of all ages, to
better understand our world, and our place in it.
I am very pleased that the Smithsonian is going to be able to go
forward with its public outreach programs, including exhibitions,
programs, and online resources, which anybody can access. It ensures
that as many Americans as possible can benefit from their vast
collections.
At the Science Museum of Minnesota, we call it ``Museum in a Box,''
and I am glad the Smithsonian is going to continue with that.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, let me thank the gentlewoman for really
letting us know what a joy the Smithsonian is, even in front of the
Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Chair, I want to emphasize that the Smithsonian outreach programs
increase connections between the Institution and targeted audiences:
African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and new
Americans, and provide kindergarten through college age music education
and outreach opportunities.
Mr. Chairman, I failed to say that when we were putting this
together, once the African American museum was established, the museum
personnel leadership, Dr. Lonnie Bunch, went on the road across America
collecting artifacts from African Americans and historic families to
put in this museum, real items of slave history and the history from
through the years, through the centuries, and it made the museum a
living example of the history of our time here in the United States.
That has been done by the Smithsonian in many different groups. And
so I would offer this article that says: ``New National Data Reveals
the Economic Impact of Museums Is More Than Double Previous
Estimates.''
The American Alliance of Museums released two
groundbreaking reports revealing indisputable evidence that
museums contribute more to the United States economy than
previously thought and have widespread support.
Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
I would like to include in the Record this American Alliance of
Museums report dated February 13, 2018.
[From the American Alliance of Museums, Feb. 13, 2018]
New National Data Reveals the Economic Impact of Museums Is More Than
Double Previous Estimates
(By Laura Lott)
Arlington, VA.--The American Alliance of Museums (AAM), the
only organization representing the entire scope of the museum
community, today released two groundbreaking reports
revealing indisputable evidence that museums contribute more
to the United States economy than previously thought and have
widespread public support that transcends political
affiliations and geographic locations.
Armed with the two new reports and a wealth of data, on
February 27 hundreds of museum professionals will visit with
members of Congress and their staff to ask them to support
funding for vital federal agencies and tax incentives for
charitable donations. The Fiscal Year 2019 budget proposal
announced by President Trump yesterday calls for the
elimination of multiple agencies that support the arts and
humanities.
``Never before in the 112-year history of the Alliance have
we possessed such comprehensive and statistically robust
studies to support what we've always known,'' said Alliance
President and CEO Laura Lott. ``Our legislators,
policymakers, funders, and trustees can be confident in the
fact that museums are important economic engines that support
jobs and bring revenue to their local communities. In
addition, our studies show that the American public is
overwhelmingly supportive of museums in general, and
specifically supports maintaining or increasing their federal
funding.''
Two Reports Reinforce the Value of Museums
The first study, Museums as Economic Engines, reveals that
museums support 726,000 jobs in the United States, and
directly employ 372,100 people, more than double that of the
professional sports industry, according to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics. The study, conducted by Oxford Economics
with the support of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, shows
that for every $100 of economic activity created by museums,
an additional $220 is created in other sectors of the US
economy as a result of supply chain and employee expenditure
impacts. These impacts mean that museums contribute
approximately $50 billion to the US economy each year, a
number that's more than twice previous estimates.
The report is also the first to show that US museums
generate more than $12 billion per year in tax revenue to
federal, state, and local governments. The museum field's
largest economic impact is on the leisure and hospitality
industry (approximately $17 billion), but it also generates
approximately $12 billion in the financial activities sector
and approximately $3 billion each in the education/health
services and manufacturing sectors.
Museums provide important economic impacts to every part of
the nation. The top 10 states driving this impact are
geographically diverse and account for 57 percent of the
gross value added to the national economy. States with the
highest economic impact from the museum sector included
California ($6.6 billion), New York ($5.4 billion), and Texas
($3.9 billion). However, those that rely most heavily on
museums due to their relatively higher concentration include
the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Wyoming, and Alaska.
The second report, Museums & Public Opinion, examines the
opinions of Americans concerning museums, their educational
and economic value, as well as their thoughts about federal
funding and support for museums in their community. Conducted
jointly by AAM and Wilkening Consulting, the study was
fielded by the market research experts at Ipsos and polled
more than 2,000 Americans. The survey results overwhelmingly
demonstrate the high degree to which Americans believe in and
support their museums, regardless of political affiliation,
geographic location, and whether they visit museums or not:
97 percent believe that museums provide valuable
educational experiences to their communities
89 percent recognize the important economic contributions
and jobs that museums bring
96 percent would approve of elected officials who act to
support museums including acting to maintain or increase
federal funding.
``The data speaks clearly: whether urban or rural,
conservative or liberal, or a museum-goer or not, Americans
treasure the museums in their communities and want elected
officials to support them,'' Lott said.
[[Page H6528]]
Findings from the two reports will be discussed by leaders
from the Alliance and its research partners February 26 at
Museums Advocacy Day in Washington, DC and May 7 at the
Alliance's Annual Meeting & Museum Expo in Phoenix.
Congressional Honorees
During Museums Advocacy Day, the Alliance will present
awards to legislators who have demonstrated exemplary support
for the nation's museums:
Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) used her position on the
Senate Appropriations Committee to advocate for funding for
key federal agencies. She is also an original cosponsor of
legislation that would reauthorize the Institute of Museum
and Library Services.
Representative Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) is a co-founder of
the Congressional STEAM Caucus, and a leader in seeking
funding that will help school districts provide a well-
rounded education.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the
Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 69 Offered by Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 69
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the Environmental Justice Small Grants Program of
the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the Office of
Environmental Justice, also known as the OEJ, was established within
the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, in 1992, in order to
assess environmental concerns with the potential of affecting
disadvantaged communities.
To bring about this goal, the OEJ set in motion the Environmental
Justice Small Grants Program in 1994. While this grants program
initially sought to overcome environmental issues that could hurt
underprivileged communities, it has, unfortunately, devolved into a
platform for political activism, in addition to offering services
typically powered by State and local governments.
Furthermore, in recent years, the Environmental Justice Small Grants
Program has been used for purposes entirely unrelated to the office's
stated mission. Examples would be: funding educational programs on
urban gardening, creating healthy environments for nail salons, or the
so-called negative consequences of automobile dependency.
While some of these projects may be commendable, the bulk are not
within the scope of the constitutional responsibilities delegated to
the Federal Government.
Our country currently shoulders $21 trillion in debt and we should
not be subsidizing what would otherwise be State initiatives and local
projects. It is for these reasons that I have introduced my amendment
to discontinue funding for the OEJ Small Grants Program. This will
allow the EPA to refocus millions of taxpayer funds toward the Agency's
core mission over the next decade, and I would ask my colleagues to
support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Kustoff of Tennessee). The gentlewoman from
Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I want my colleagues to listen closely to
what this amendment does. It prohibits funds to support the EPA's
Environmental Justice Small Grants Program, which, since its inception
in 1994, has awarded funding to local and Tribal organizations working
with communities facing environmental justice issues.
These grants support and empower low-income communities to understand
and address exposure to environmental harms and risks.
If there is a problem, if there is a grant that hasn't been done
properly, then it is Congress' responsibility to do oversight. So, in
my opinion, there should be no Member of this body that supports
cutting these critical funds. If there are problems, we should be
requesting oversight.
This is a case of David versus Goliath. With this amendment, small
communities would be left defenseless when confronted with corporations
that come in and sometimes cause illness due to their underlying
pursuit of profit over human health.
Examples of these programs supported by these grants are: a program
to promote Baltimore residents' awareness of lead health risks and lead
abatement services. It is important to provide education:
Working with the residents in Puerto Rico to clean up coastal areas
and reduce solid waste and aquatic debris. I was just recently in
Puerto Rico watching the EPA work and clean up the debris, the
unimaginable debris of the hurricanes that went through last year.
Working in Lawrence, Massachusetts, in one of the poorest and most
populated cities in New England to educate families about lead
contamination in soil, and, yes, sometimes that means knowing what is
in the garden, what is in the yard, what is in the playground, as
children touch soil contaminated by lead and then touch their faces and
their mouths. The negative effect of growing vegetables in lead-
contaminated soil can be life changing for children.
Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would, again, just
reiterate the fact that this grant program is not doing the job that it
was designed to do. It is not even doing things that are related to the
stated mission. It is a waste of taxpayer dollars, and for that, it is
not something that we should continue funding.
It has lost its purpose. It has lost its mission, and it just simply
is not necessary to continue funding. When we talk about the issues
happening in Puerto Rico or other parts of the world, we have FEMA and
we have other avenues to deal with serious problems like what happened
in Puerto Rico and other places in our country, and those means are
working effectively.
But to simply waste funds on a grant program that directly is
involved in activities unrelated to their own mission statement, is not
something that we should be involved in. As a result, this amendment
has been endorsed by a number of organizations, such as: the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heritage Action, Citizens Against
Government Waste, Club for Growth, FreedomWorks, Free Market America,
and a host of organizations who are concerned about the direction our
country is going financially and are supportive of stopping the waste
here.
So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I would gently remind the gentleman from
Georgia that Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States. It is not
a foreign entity.
I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Calvert), my dear friend and chairman of the committee.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman, and I must rise
in reluctant opposition.
I wish I could have worked with the gentleman on this amendment, but
this amendment reaches a little too far and is inconsistent even with
the Trump administration's position.
This year the President requested $2 million for the Environmental
Justice Small Grants Program which would provide financial assistance
to low income, minority, and Tribal populations, which we deal with
quite often.
This amendment would prohibit EPA's ability to issue grants
altogether, which means all of the Office of Environmental Justice
funds would be allocated to the payroll and personnel and could result
in the hiring of more EPA staff, and I am sure that is not your
intention. And so there would be
[[Page H6529]]
no savings according to the CBO. Zero. No savings at all in this
amendment. I don't believe that is your intent.
Because the amendment would have unintended consequences, I must
oppose the amendment.
Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate these
comments. What we are dealing with would simply do away with funding of
the small grants part of this program where those funds are not being
used according to the mission.
Mr. Chair, I continue to ask for support from my colleagues, keeping
in mind the multiple organizations that are supportive of this
amendment. I ask my colleagues to support this, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota has 2 minutes
remaining.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman very much and I
am glad that she emphasized the work that the Environmental Justice
grants have done in Puerto Rico, and the fact that they are citizens of
the United States.
But I have seen what the Environmental Justice grants have done
because they are small. As Mr. Calvert indicated, the administration
recommended $2 million. These grants are small, and they help
communities clean up. They help communities deal with violators of
environmental rules, both in the State and Federal, mostly State, and
gives them the ability to clean and deal with neighborhood issues. That
is how small these grants are.
It also has provided assistance to Environmental Justice clinics that
can work with community organizations on how to petition for something
that is both an eyesore and environmental damage, to rid it of it, or
to get the entity, the corporation, the small business, whatever it is,
to clean it up. It makes it better for all concerned.
Mr. Chair, I would just ask and recognize that this is part of civic
participation, and these grants should be allowed.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I just have to ask the
question. Tragedies like the water crisis in Flint, Michigan,
demonstrate the issues surrounding environmental justice to continue to
persist in our country. So the question is: When did it become partisan
to ensure children drink clean water?
This amendment ignores the need to identify and address
disproportionately high adverse human health and environmental effects
on minority and low-income populations. I urge, I implore the gentleman
from Georgia, Mr. Chair, if he suspects that there is waste in this
program, let's do the oversight together.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and to
stand with communities and the disenfranchised over corporations.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
{time} 1945
Amendment No. 70 Offered by Mr. Smith of Missouri
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 70
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to pay attorney's fees pursuant to a settlement in
any case, in which the Federal Government is a party, that
arises under--
(1) the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.);
(2) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq.); or
(3) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my
amendment, which seeks to crack down on the practice commonly known as
sue and settle.
When Federal agencies settle lawsuits with outside advocacy groups
behind closed doors, the outcome is pretty much what you would expect:
costly new regulatory burdens with taxpayers picking up the tab.
That is exactly how sue and settle works. Federal agencies accept
lawsuits from outside advocacy organizations and, rather than defend
themselves, proceed to settle that lawsuit in a closed-door agreement,
resulting in new and more costly regulations.
It is bad enough that the taxpayer ultimately pays for these
regulations, but under current law, it is the taxpayer footing the bill
for attorneys' fees for these outside organizations. That is absurd.
My amendment prevents American taxpayer dollars from being used to
pay the legal fees of outside advocacy groups for settlements under the
Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act.
Organizations can still sue whomever they want, but they cannot do it
on the backs of taxpayers.
Fortunately, we are making progress to end this practice. In the
House, we have passed this amendment several times before, and the
Trump administration has taken notice of our efforts. The Trump
administration sees this practice for what it is: an abuse of our
regulator process that must be reined in.
The EPA announced last fall that it will no longer pay attorneys'
fees as part of the settlement process and will ensure stakeholders
have input and a more transparent settlement process. This amendment
will help bolster the administration's efforts to stop this abusive
practice.
The Trump administration realizes that nowhere is the cost of these
settlements more painful than in the environmental regulatory context.
The result of these lawsuits is hundreds of new regulations and tens of
millions--even billions--of dollars in compliance costs.
If that isn't bad enough, as part of the agreements, agencies are
often required to reprioritize their agendas, allocating limited
resources to the priorities of these interest groups rather than
priorities designated by Congress or ones that have received public and
stakeholder input.
The American people are tired of our unaccountable Federal
Government, and we have the opportunity to do something about it. This
is a necessary step to rein in overregulation and bring transparency
back to the regulatory process.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I am a little confused, because it would
be only when the Trump administration would decide to be a party of a
lawsuit that this judgment would ever be used. So I would assume that
you would trust the Trump administration to be overly judicious before
involving itself with any suit, would you not?
I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. I support the Trump administration, but I also
support our duty under the Constitution to make sure we tell the
executive what to do.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, that is why I am
confused, because this would be the Trump administration. The gentleman
said, if I heard him correctly, Mr. Chair, that he would expect the
Trump administration to be very judicious in using this.
[[Page H6530]]
So I find this amendment is extraneous. It puts the same parameters
on attorneys' fees under the ESA, the Clean Air Act, and the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act that are already in place for attorneys'
fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
The Equal Access to Justice Act already caps the hourly rate of
attorneys' fees, unless the court determines an increase in the cost of
living or special factors such as limited availability of qualified
attorneys for the proceedings justifies a higher fee. And it requires
the party to be a prevailing party.
Mr. Chairman, we don't need to add an extraneous, redundant provision
to a bill that is already overburdened with harmful legislative riders,
especially when I trust that the Trump administration would be very
limited and very judicious in ever using this.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I reserve
the balance of my time and my right to close.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte).
Mr. GIANFORTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
This amendment would block funds used by the agencies to pay legal
fees under any lawsuit settlement that arises under the Clean Air Act,
the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act.
While the intent of these pieces of legislation was good, serial
litigants and special interest groups have turned these laws into tools
used to block access to our forests and our mineral resources.
In Montana, we have a litigation problem, as many of our forest
management projects are locked up by environmental extremists filing
frivolous lawsuits. Agencies spend more time behind a desk and more
resources defending their actions than they do working on our lands.
These lawyers continue to get richer as Montana's landscape goes up
in smoke and taxpayer funds are wasted.
This same amendment passed the House last September, and I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment again.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to close.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), who is the
subcommittee chairman.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's
amendment. Suing the government and settling has become a lucrative
business that is supported by taxpayer dollars. The Endangered Species
Act, for example, has become wrapped around the axle of the judicial
system by excessive litigation.
We are essentially paying people to sue the Federal Government. This
needs to stop.
Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, the sue-and-settle practice cuts
stakeholders and the public out of the regulatory process. It
undermines the Article I authority we hold here in Congress.
By restricting the payment of legal fees, we take away the incentive
for these environmental advocacy groups to sue the Federal Government,
and we protect public input in the rulemaking process.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This amendment is unnecessary and duplicative. The Equal Access to
Justice Act already provides a framework for legal fees related to
cases in which the Federal Government is a party. I find myself
standing here as a Democrat, a person who has been resisting almost
everything that President Trump has been trying to do in the
environmental arena and other arenas that affect healthcare and so much
more, but I find myself defending the Trump administration's right in
which they are a party to participate in the Equal Access to Justice
Act, just as I did for President Obama's administration.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to stop, take a minute, think
about what this amendment is really doing, and agree with me that we
should oppose this amendment. We should not stop the Federal Government
when it is involved in cases and is a party from participating in the
Equal Access to Justice Act.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 71 Offered by Mr. Larson of Connecticut
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 71
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 148, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $100,000) (increased by $100,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to require a Federal study
on the financial impact of the disaster known as crumbling foundations
that is plaguing parts of the Northeast, including my home State of
Connecticut, Massachusetts, and with further study, we believe, it
impacts much of the northeastern region of our country.
This amendment simply asks for the Treasury to lead a joint study
with our Federal regulators to assess the financial impact of this
disaster and provide recommendations to help mitigate Federal and local
losses, and help these suffering homeowners who, through no fault of
their own, have experienced a catastrophic disaster.
There is no one who has worked harder on this in our State of
Connecticut than Joe Courtney. Joe has been a leader in this,
organizing people in both the State and local arenas, as well as our
two United States Senators Blumenthal and Murphy.
Joe has led the way, and I have had the fortune, along with State
Senator Tim Larson, to travel to South Windsor, East Windsor, and
Manchester, Connecticut, and witness the devastation and the heartache
that these homeowners go through.
I know, looking out and seeing Mr. Young, he will remember what
happened in the South with the famous, or infamous, China drywall. It
is similar to that experience, where homeowners and individuals,
through no fault of their own, experienced catastrophic loss.
We have been working tirelessly on this effort and feel that this
study, in fact, will reveal the impact that it will have on homeowners,
many of whose loans and homes have been backed by GSEs Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac, and even as we project out into the future, having Federal
bases there where this concrete may have been used that has impacted
the people there in a dramatic fashion.
As I indicated, nobody knows more about this issue and has studied it
more thoroughly than Congressman Joe Courtney from the Second
Congressional District.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) to explain further the issue of
crumbling foundations.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Larson for yielding and,
again, for offering this amendment, which has been part of a number of
initiatives that we have worked on jointly together to deal with this
issue.
Again, for the record, just to clarify what is going on here, a
concrete quarry up in north central Connecticut,
[[Page H6531]]
which had been mining aggregate for foundations in homes, it turned out
there was a material called pyrrhotite, which is an iron sulfide
material that, over time, when it is exposed to moisture, rusts and
cracks in a sickening fashion and results in the total collapse of home
foundations.
The estimate is as high as 19,000 homes have had foundations using
material from this quarry. As the gentleman pointed out, this has also
occurred in western Massachusetts. It goes as far north, actually, as
Three Rivers, Quebec, because it is a strain of pyrrhotite that runs
from Canada down through New England.
This picture shows vividly the damage caused to a home in Coventry,
Connecticut, where the repairs require you to lift the house, clean out
the old foundation, pour a new foundation, and, again, lower the house
back. It costs roughly about $200,000.
We were able to secure a tax ruling from the Treasury Department that
allows individuals like this homeowner in the picture to basically
deduct those losses, which, again, is some relief.
Frankly, there is more that we need to bring to the table. The
gentleman's amendment would allow the Federal regulators that set up
the rules for lending banks and institutions to get some flexibility
for loan-to-value ratio rules that occur when there are natural
disasters.
{time} 2000
Again, in Federal natural disasters in places like Florida and Texas,
there is some flexibility to allow homeowners to get a loan perhaps
above the loan-to-value ratios so they can, again, basically conduct
repairs to make their houses habitable again. This amendment will set
up that process.
Secretary Mnuchin, as the gentleman and I know we have met with
personally, would be the Department that would organize this task force
that the amendment contemplates.
Again, it is something which the banking industry in Connecticut and
Massachusetts has expressed a strong interest in basically allowing
some relief for homeowners who, again, have poured their heart and soul
into their homes to be able to recover their losses.
I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. We had a similar
amendment last night that was adopted by Mr. Calvert. Again, I want to
thank the majority for their understanding on this issue.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chair, I would also like to thank
Secretary Mnuchin again for his outstanding work, his understanding and
empathy, and the prompt manner in which they have taken up what, as you
can imagine for these homeowners, is just catastrophic in nature. We
want to commend him and also the Tax Advocate as well for their
testimony before the Ways and Means Committee on this very important
issue.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 72 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 72
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 156, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 157, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 221, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
Page 224, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from Alaska (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment
No. 72 to provide additional funding for the Native American CDFI
Assistance Program.
This program supports critical economic development in Native
communities, which face significant barriers to accessing basic
financial services and capital. For example, almost all Alaska Native
villages in my State do not have banks and are not connected to the
road system.
The Native program provides financial assistance and technical
assistance awards on a competitive basis to Native CDFIs, allowing them
to effectively build wealth and further economic self-determines in
Native communities.
These mission-driven Native organizations are working to finance
businesses, create jobs, expand and improve affordable housing options,
and much more.
The Native program accounts for a small portion of the fund's overall
budget but has a significant positive impact, which includes empowering
Alaska Natives to improve their economic well-being in my home State.
Without my amendment, a cut to the Native program in FY 2019 would be
especially devastating to our Nation's impoverished and underserved
Native communities.
I urge my colleagues to support this noncontroversial bipartisan
amendment to restore funding for the Native program.
My amendment, when considered with Representative Steven Palazzo's
CDFI amendment, would restore the program to the current enacted level
of $16 million so the Native organizations may continue growing small
businesses, create jobs, and promote vital economic development in
Native communities.
I would like to thank the Native CDFI Network and the amendment's
cosponsors, Representative Gwen Moore, Colleen Hanabusa, and Tulsi
Gabbard.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).
Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for introducing this
amendment of which I am a proud cosponsor.
This amendment provides additional funding for the Native American
CDFI Assistance Program, also known as NACA, which supports critical
economic development in Native communities like mine in Hawaii, those
in Alaska, and communities all across the country which already face
significant barriers to accessing financial mainstream services and
capital.
NACA accounts for a small portion of the CDFIs, but it provides
significant support to Native CDFIs, including Native Hawaii
organizations in my home State of Hawaii.
Of the $22.7 million in CDFI awards made to Hawaii since the fund was
launched, 41 percent of total dollars awarded came from this NACA
Program. It has funded organizations like the Council for Native
Hawaiian Advancement, which supports Native Hawaiian communities with
homeownership counseling and mortgage loans, small business access to
capital, and loans to farmers and ranchers.
While the NACA Program is unable to meet the demand by qualified
Native CDFIs at its current funding level, a cut to NACA in FY 2019
would be especially devastating to our Nation's impoverished and
underserved Native communities.
I urge my colleagues to join my colleague from Hawaii, Representative
Colleen Hanabusa, and me to support this noncontroversial, bipartisan
amendment to restore funding to NACA.
The amendment, when considered with Representative Palazzo's CDFI
amendment, would restore NACA to the current enacted level of $16
million so that Native CDFIs may continue growing small businesses,
creating jobs, and promoting vital economic opportunity and development
in Native communities.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her
comments. This is a good amendment to this bill, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 73 Offered by Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 73
printed in House Report 115-830.
Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment at the desk.
[[Page H6532]]
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 156, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Page 221, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
Page 224, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentlewoman
from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Mexico.
Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Chair, my amendment
increases funding for community development financial institutions,
CDFIs.
CDFIs are critical to New Mexican communities because they provide
financial products like loans, investments, and tax credits to
underserved communities, including poor, rural, and Tribal areas.
This helps New Mexican entrepreneurs obtain capital to start and grow
small businesses. It enables pueblos to build housing, and it provides
access to economic development opportunities for rural communities
throughout my State.
There are currently 19 CDFIs in New Mexico, which have received $48
million in Federal grants since 1996. In total, CDFIs have provided
14,700 loans worth more than $830 million for New Mexico communities,
organizations, and individuals. On average, every dollar in CDFI
funding can be leveraged for 12 times that amount.
It should come as no surprise just how critical this funding is for
the economic development of my State, which is still struggling to
recover from the recession.
For example, when no other lenders would give them a loan, the
Clinica la Esperanza in the South Valley received a $31,000 loan from
the Accion CDFI to provide much-needed primary care to residents in the
South Valley. A few years later, the clinic received an additional
$76,000 from Accion to move to a larger location in order to serve a
larger client base of 3,800 patients.
Another example of CDFI lending is Tiwa Lending Services, which
provides loans and financial education to the Pueblo of Isleta and
other surrounding Native American communities.
And just last month, Clearinghouse CDFI received a $3.2 million grant
to build affordable housing in several States, including New Mexico.
Mr. Chairman, the evidence is clear. CDFIs have proven to be
successful drivers of economic growth and development in underserved
areas. They create jobs, provide American opportunity, and stimulate
growth.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to increase funding for
CDFIs to help spur economic development in communities throughout the
country.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 74 Offered by Mr. Palazzo
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 74
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 156, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $17,000,000)''.
Page 157, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
Page 158, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $4,000,000)''.
Page 158, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple.
During committee markup of this bill, we were successful in adding a
restoration of $25 million to the CDFI fund. Because of the way the
amendment was drafted in committee, this secondary amendment is
necessary to designate the individual funds within the CDFI account.
The CDFI banks that this amendment seeks to assist provide essential
financial products to underserved populations, often the poorest of the
poor. Additionally, financial literacy education provided by CDFI banks
is an invaluable service to our most at-risk and disadvantaged
communities across the Nation.
Again, this amendment is purely clerical in nature and ensures that
the $25 million added at committee markup is equitably distributed
between the separate CDFI funds so it can do the most good for our most
needy.
Mr. Chair, I ask the House to pass this amendment to ensure these
reach their intended recipients, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I do
not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
I was disappointed that this bill originally cut CDFI by $59 million
and was very supportive of the full committee amendment that Mr.
Palazzo offered to add $25 million to the program, which passed with
bipartisan support. This amendment simply allocates that increase among
the various worthy programs in CDFI.
I am particularly pleased to note that the Bank Enterprise Award
Program and Healthy Food Financing Initiative received some of the
funding, although I would like to point out that this increase alone
does not bring any of the individual programs to their enacted levels
and still leaves CDFI $34 million, or 14 percent, below the current
level.
I urge support of the amendment and hope that we will be able to work
towards getting the CDFI the additional increases it needs in
conference.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
Seeing no other speakers, I would like to thank the chairman and
ranking member for their support in committee for restoring the funds.
Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote on my amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 75 Offered by Mr. Soto
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 75
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 160, line 3, insert ``(increased by $1,000,000)''
before ``shall''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Soto) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chair, my amendment would increase funding for the Tax
Counseling for the Elderly Program by $1 million.
For this amendment, we are not taking the $1 million from any other
account. Rather, there is a $2.4 billion account for taxpayer services,
and this simply adds to the carveout from that total for Tax Counseling
for the Elderly.
{time} 2015
This amendment is identical to an amendment I offered last year that
passed this body by a voice vote, and I urge my colleagues to support
this amendment again this year.
The Tax Counseling for the Elderly program offers free tax help for
individuals who are aged 60 or older. Cooperative grant agreements are
entered into between the IRS and eligible organizations to provide tax
assistance to elderly taxpayers. These funds provided by the IRS are
used by organizations to reimburse volunteers for their out-of-pocket
expenses, including transportation, meals, and other expenses incurred
by them in providing tax counseling assistance at locations convenient
to the taxpayer.
[[Page H6533]]
This amendment will restore funding to this program at the level that
passed both the House last year and the Congress in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2018.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment; I thank
the chairman for his support; and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 76 Offered by Mr. Soto
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 76
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 160, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $500,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Soto) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chair, my amendment would increase funding for the
IRS's identity theft and refund fraud casework by $500,000. For this
amendment, we are not taking the $500,000 from any account. Rather,
there is a $2.4 billion account for Taxpayer Services, and this simply
adds to the carveout from that total for the Taxpayer Advocate Services
identity theft and refund fraud casework.
This amendment will restore funding to this program at the level that
passed the Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018.
Last year, there were 597,000 tax returns with confirmed identity
theft, resulting in $6 billion in taxpayer refunds being affected.
Identity theft can be frustrating and confusing to victims. While
identity thieves steal information from sources outside the tax system,
the IRS is often the first to inform a victim that their identity has
been stolen. The IRS is working hard to resolve identity theft cases as
quickly as possible and has made considerable progress at closing
backlogs; however, more work remains.
Fighting identity theft is an ongoing battle, as identity thieves
continue to create new ways of stealing personal information and using
it for their gain. Identity theft cases are among the most complex
handled by the IRS. The IRS is continually reviewing processes and
policies to minimize instances of identity theft and to help those who
find themselves victimized.
We, as a Congress, should be giving the IRS the resources necessary
to close backlogs and help our constituents as expeditiously as
possible.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment; I thank
the chairman for his support; and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 77 Offered by Mr. Carbajal
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 77
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike section 125 of title I of division B.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Carbajal) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chairman, this week President Trump's Treasury
Secretary, Steven Mnuchin, decided that the agency will no longer
collect information on donations to political nonprofits.
This administration will no longer require 501(c)(4) organizations to
disclose their donors, including groups like the National Rifle
Association, the NRA, that operates as a nonprofit, but also spends
millions of dollars each year on lobbying and advertising to influence
our elections.
This announcement comes the same week that the Department of Justice
arrested and charged a known Russian foreign agent who had infiltrated
the NRA, an organization that has received thousands of dollars from
Russian nationals since 2015. The Treasury Secretary's decision this
week only thickens the swamp by unleashing a new opportunity for dark
money and money from foreign powers to continue to flood our upcoming
midterm elections.
I believe that we need more transparency in our elections, not less.
While super PACs are currently required to disclose donors, now
501(c)(4)s are not. If you were a donor looking to influence elections
and wanted to hide your identity, the underlying bill is currently
making 501(c)(4) organizations an even more attractive way to conceal
contributions.
There is a provision in today's appropriations package that prohibits
the IRS--prohibits the IRS--from issuing guidance on whether an
organization is operating exclusively for the promotion of social
welfare purposes, as written in the IRS code for 501(c)(4) nonprofits,
to ensure that no one is abusing our Tax Code to influence our
elections.
My amendment simply strikes out that provision so that the IRS may
issue guidance differentiating which groups are truly social welfare
organizations with a charitable mission from political organizations
abusing our nonprofit tax laws to hide their political donors from the
public.
More and more, our elections are being driven by organizations that
are receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in unreported, secret
donations. Dark money is strangling our democracy and silencing the
will of the American people.
In the 2012 presidential election, dark-money groups such as these
spent over a quarter of a billion dollars on partisan political
advertising and other campaign activities. In 2014, we saw the greatest
wave of secret, special-interest money ever raised in a congressional
election.
Moreover, in 2016, dark-money groups spent nearly 10 times what they
did the previous cycle, totaling over $1.1 billion, and that pattern of
undisclosed political spending continues to grow this year. These
political nonprofit organizations are receiving tax-exempt treatment
and are being allowed to corrupt Federal tax law meant to help social
welfare organizations like volunteer firefighters, rotary clubs, and
other community service groups.
Our current election laws make it impossible to know where this money
is coming from or if it is coming from foreign adversaries, like we saw
recently with the NRA. This amendment is not partisan and will only
continue to allow the IRS to identify nonprofits that are spending
significant amounts of their money to influence our elections,
regardless of their party affiliation.
Mr. Chairman, at this pivotal moment in our democracy, I urge my
colleagues who are serious about draining the swamp to take this small
step towards increased transparency in our political process.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from
California. We have carried this provision the past 3 years in this
very same bill. In fact, it has been signed into law, not only by
President Trump, but also by President Barack Obama. It has been
bipartisan in nature.
Retaining section 125 continues the current state of affairs as we
know it today on this very, very sensitive issue. The IRS has limited
resources at this time, but a lot of demands on them. Taking this
section away and impacting this regulation that clearly everyone
hates--we should have the IRS use their resources for the things that
it should be intended for: resources to improve customer service, to
implement tax reform law that we recently passed, reducing tax fraud,
and moving ahead in this new tax season.
Mr. Chairman, reluctantly, I have to rise in opposition and ask that
we continue the current law as it stands today.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H6534]]
Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the feedback from my colleague.
Mr. Chair, this will not detour or take away from the efficiency of
the focus of work and spending of resources by the IRS. This only does
a fundamental thing, and that is provide for more disclosure and
transparency to ensure that the American public has sunshine on who is
spending what resources through which organizations. This amendment
merely provides that transparency.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I'll close with this. I
appreciate the gentleman's sentiments towards how the IRS should use
their resources.
Being a member of the Appropriations Committee and a member of this
subcommittee my entire time on the full committee, I can assure you
that the IRS is operating at a level that was not last seen since about
2011. Their resources are tremendously limited at this time, and we
would prefer that they focus on customer service and implementing the
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that we recently passed.
Mr. Chair, I'll continue to oppose the gentleman's amendment, ask the
House to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 78 Offered by Mr. Kustoff of Tennessee
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 78
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. KUSTOFF of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 185, line 8, after the dollar amount insert
``(increase by $5,000,000)''.
Page 221, line 13, after the dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
Page 224, line 19, after the dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. KUSTOFF of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my
amendment to increase funding for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Areas program by $5 million.
I have had numerous conversations with law enforcement throughout my
district, and it is crystal clear that the opioid epidemic continues to
be one of their primary concerns. Our drug task forces in the Eighth
Congressional District desperately need these resources, as we have
seen a spike in narcotics trafficking along Interstate 40 in Tennessee.
Mr. Chairman, I know that many of my colleagues are having similar
discussions in their district, so they understand just how serious this
issue is becoming for the safety and the security of the American
people. It is no secret that the spread of illegal drugs throughout
west Tennessee and across the Nation leads to higher crime rates, which
ultimately increases the financial strain on our local, State, and
Federal law enforcement.
We must do more to support law enforcement in this fight. This
amendment will provide necessary funds for additional equipment and
man-hours to conduct and carry out lengthy investigations to arrest
these drug traffickers. The brave men and women in uniform are working
tirelessly on the front lines to combat the opioid epidemic, and we
can't afford to simply sit back and watch.
We also must think of the resources needed to battle the drug
addiction epidemic, such as the opioid crisis. The extra funding will
take major steps to target these high-risk areas in a front-end
approach to preventing the spread of the opioid crisis in our
communities. We must be proactive now, because prevention is the best
long-term solution.
I am a former United States attorney, and I have seen firsthand how
much these funds can make a huge difference in forward progress. I
believe that funding the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program
is a good first step to supporting our law enforcement and combating
rampant opioid epidemics.
Law enforcement at the local, State, and Federal level have expressed
support for this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same
today.
I also want to thank my colleagues, Mrs. Comstock and Mr. McKinley,
for their hard work and support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 2030
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 79 Offered by Mrs. Murphy of Florida
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 79
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mrs. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 246, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentlewoman
from Florida (Mrs. Murphy) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Mrs. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I rise in support of this bipartisan amendment, which I am proud to
colead with the Congressman from California (Mr. Knight), the
Congressman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), and the Congressman
from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).
This amendment would provide additional support for two important and
successful initiatives overseen by the U.S. Small Business
Administration.
First, it would increase funding for SBA Women's Business Centers by
$600,000. This amendment builds on a successful floor amendment I
offered to last year's bill, which boosted funding for WBCs by $1
million.
If our amendment is adopted, the House would provide a total of $19
million for WBCs, a substantial funding level that I will work to
retain when the House and the Senate meet to reconcile their respective
bills.
There are more than 100 Women's Business Centers located across the
country, each operated by a local nonprofit organization that receives
financial support from SBA and others. These WBCs provide business
training, counseling, and mentoring geared to women, especially those
who are socially and economically disadvantaged.
Every WBC tailors its services to the specific needs of the community
in which it is located, but all provide training in finance,
management, and marketing. They also help clients utilize SBA's suite
of capital, counseling, and contracting programs.
My central Florida district is home to many talented entrepreneurs,
and, yet, it currently lacks a WBC. If this amendment is adopted, it
will increase the number of WBCs that can be established nationwide and
increase the chances that a WBC will be established in the Orlando
area. This would help many of my constituents start or grow their small
businesses and, in doing so, further strengthen our local economy.
In addition, our amendment would increase funding for SBA's Veterans
Outreach programs by $400,000, from $12.3 million to $12.7 million.
Each year, SBA uses these resources to serve more than 200,000
veterans and their families, including service-disabled veterans. SBA
provides veterans with business training and mentorship, and helps them
obtain loans, apply for Federal contracts, and cultivate connections
with commercial supply chains.
My support for these investments in our veterans is rooted in the
belief that servicemembers have fought for our Nation, and, we, as a
Nation, must fight for them, both while they are in the military and
once they transition to civilian life.
Our amendment does not increase the total amount of founding
appropriated by Congress in the bill, and it enhances support for WBCs
and veterans programs without reducing support for any other
priorities.
[[Page H6535]]
I thank the Rules Committee for allowing the House to consider this
bipartisan amendment. I respectfully ask my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 80 Offered by Mr. Polis
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 80
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 248, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment. Employee-
owned businesses are uniquely structured where the employer and the
shareholders and the executives benefit, as well as the workers.
There are different forms of making sure that employees can
participate in the success and capital growth of a company. Those
include co-ops, cooperatives; ESOPs, which stands for employee stock
ownership plans; stock options; profit sharing. There are a number of
ways to do it.
But some of the key findings are that, over time, employees at
employee-owned businesses, whether they are partially or entirely owned
by employees, have greater success. The companies do better and the
workers do better: higher wages; more savings for retirement; more
sustainability; and more profitability as an enterprise, because it
improves retention rates and employee morale.
I think that employee-owned businesses are an important market-
oriented mechanism to reduce the wage gap between executives,
shareholders, and workers. But it can be difficult for a business to
transition to an employee-ownership model or a business structure that
allows for accessing financing and capital markets to make that
transition happen.
That is why I am sponsoring this amendment today to encourage the
Small Business Administration to provide technical assistance, as well
as education and outreach about existing programs, one of which is
called the loan guarantee program, which is available to employee-owned
businesses.
SBA loans are a critical resource for many small businesses, and the
employee-owned loan guarantee program is underutilized because a lot of
lenders don't understand the unique nature of employee-owned
businesses, especially smaller banks.
ESOPs can be a very compelling model, as can the other models of
employee ownership. There are a number of successful employee-owned
companies in the district I am honored to represent in northern
Colorado, including New Belgium Brewing.
SBA loans are actually a critical part of helping companies make that
transition to employee ownership, especially for small and midsized
enterprises.
I encourage the adoption of my amendment to help employee-owned
businesses access financing options that will help small businesses
grow, and help our communities retain community, local employee
ownership of small businesses. I encourage my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle to support this amendment to highlight the role that SBA
can play in making employee ownership options a real-life occurrence
for more companies and people across our country.
Mr. Chairman, of course, there are a number of pieces of legislation,
many of them bipartisan, under the jurisdiction of different committees
with regard to how we can remove barriers to employee ownership in our
economy. But this simple one before us today would simply encourage the
SBA to provide technical assistance under current authorized, funded
programs, to help make sure that there is a greater awareness about the
opportunities of employee ownership, both for economic productivity as
well as for reducing the equity and wage gap in our country.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 81 Offered by Mr. Carbajal
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 81
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee for the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), and I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 264, strike lines 13 through 18.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Carbajal) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes section 628 of the
underlying bill prohibiting the Securities and Exchange Commission,
SEC, from issuing rules on disclosures for corporations spending money
to influence our elections, primarily through paid advertising.
The Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision means that
corporations, even foreign-controlled corporations, are now allowed to
spend unlimited amounts of money to influence American elections.
Publicly traded corporations can buy millions of dollars' worth of
TV, social media, and radio ads without disclosing their political
expenditures to their shareholders. This outside spending in our
elections has created a greater need for Members to raise more money
for their campaigns and less time legislating.
This has eroded the public's faith in our institutions and is
damaging to our democracy. Families in my district and across the
country are concerned about paying their children's tuition or medical
bills, not spending thousands of dollars to influence Federal
elections. Their voices shouldn't be drowned out by millions of dollars
of secret special-interest advertising from corporations.
A corporation's main goal is to make a profit, not to improve the
quality of life for all Americans. They shouldn't have a say in our
elections without their shareholders and the public knowing about it.
That is why we cannot muzzle the SEC's ability to issue rules
regarding disclosures for publicly traded corporations on all their
political expenditures. Stockholders and voters have been clear: They
want to know the details of the political donations of the companies
they own and give their business to. In fact, more than 1.2 million
comments have been submitted to the SEC requesting that they require
political disclosure by publicly traded companies. That is the largest
number of comments on a rule in the history of the agency.
Congress should stop standing in the way of the SEC's mission, which
is to provide transparency to the markets and the public. This
amendment does not infringe on a corporation's right to spend money on
political activity. It would just allow the SEC to disclose what money
is being spent.
This is yet another opportunity for my Republican colleagues to
prevent special interests from gaining even more pull in Washington and
begin draining that swamp. This should not be a Democrat or a
Republican issue, and it goes to the heart of our democracy and
maintaining a government that is of, by, and for the American people.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, since the courts have weighed in,
Democrats have been attempting to use the securities laws to mandate
the disclosure of
[[Page H6536]]
companies' political spending activities in order to name and shame
companies from engaging in such free speech activity.
Time and time again, when the issue of political disclosure has come
up as a shareholder proposal at every company's annual proxy meeting
where it has been proposed, it has been shot down. It has been
defeated.
In fact, according to Proxy Monitor, the average percentage vote in
favor of a political disclosure shareholder proposal in 2016 was just
23 percent support. Shareholders have repeatedly weighed in against
requiring disclosure of this information and do not believe it is
important in making their own investment decisions regarding that
company.
Our securities laws and disclosure requirements have always centered
on the concept of materiality, as determined by the Supreme Court,
whether an omitted fact is material by looking at ``whether there is a
substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it
important in deciding how to vote.''
In fact, under the Obama administration, former SEC Chair Mary Jo
White declined to advance a political disclosure rule, stating it was
``not one of the priorities we are advancing.''
Additionally, former Chair White was vocal about ensuring that
disclosures were not causing informational overload for investors. As a
member of the Financial Services Committee, we heard repeated--
repeated--testimony on that fact.
This provision to prevent the SEC from issuing a political disclosure
rule has continually been part of appropriations packages that have
been signed into law by Presidents of both parties and should continue
to stay as part of this package.
{time} 2045
Now, earlier you heard that the mission of the SEC is to provide
transparency. Let me read exactly what the mission of the Securities
and Exchange Commission is:
``The mission of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is to
protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and
facilitate capital formation.''
This simply does not fit into that tripartite mission of the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Now, with that being said, nothing--and let me repeat that, nothing--
prevents companies from voluntarily reporting this information if they
believe that it is important for them to make such disclosures or for
their shareholders to also vote that way.
So all companies, private and public, should remain free to do just
that: make that decision as they decide is the best course for that
particular company.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chairman, this is not about shaming anyone. This
does not restrict free speech or the ability of corporations to engage
in political activity. It only allows the SEC to require disclosure of
corporate political spending, a little bit of transparency providing
disclosure to the public, so that they clearly know the companies that
they are investing their money in.
Moreover, more than 150 large companies, including more than half of
the companies in the S&P 100, are disclosing their political spending
already. Investors have filed over 300 shareholder proposals since 2011
asking companies to disclose political spending. This is all about
transparency and protecting our democracy. We should not be scared of
giving the public more information.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I will repeat a couple of things very
briefly.
All of these proxy proposals have garnered 23 percent, average,
support, so there is not widespread support among the investors.
And again, I will repeat that three-pronged mission that the
Securities and Exchange Commission has: ``protect investors; maintain
fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital
formation.'' This particular effort does none of those things, advances
none of those things, and that is why I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 82 Offered by Mr. Zeldin
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 82
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division B (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to enforce section 540 of Public Law 110-329 (122 Stat.
3688) or section 538 of Public Law 112-74 (125 Stat. 976; 6
U.S.C. 190 note).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Zeldin) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my important
bipartisan amendment to halt the sale and marketing of Plum Island, New
York, by the General Services Administration.
Situated at the gateway of the Long Island Sound, Plum Island is a
treasure for our local community in both New York and Connecticut. As a
critical resource for research, approximately 90 percent of the land on
Plum Island has been sheltered from development, protecting the diverse
ecosystem of Long Island Sound and critical habitat for migratory
birds, marine mammals, and rare plants. With recorded history dating
back to the 1700s, Plum Island is also an essential cultural and
historical resource.
Since World War II, Plum Island has been utilized as a resource
laboratory. The facility, which has been under Federal jurisdiction
since 1899, has since grown to become what is known today as the Plum
Island Animal Disease Center.
In 2005, the Department of Homeland Security, which currently has
jurisdiction over the island, announced that the Animal Disease Center
would be moved to a new Federal facility in Kansas. To offset the cost
of this relocation, a law was enacted in 2008 that called for the
private sale of Plum Island to the highest bidder.
The traditional interagency consultation process regarding the
disposal of Federal property was bypassed, fast-tracking the potential
sale of this island without consulting the local community or other
Federal agencies. This statutory mandate was also based on a false
assumption that a sale could offset the cost of the new facility, when
the true value of the island, including cleanup costs, still are not
clear.
The town of Southold, New York, has local jurisdiction over the
island and has passed ordinances preventing any private development.
This factor, coupled with the significant cleanup and environmental
mitigation costs associated with closing this facility, gives Plum
Island little to no commercial value.
Furthermore, according to a DHS report issued in April of 2016, the
new site in Manhattan, Kansas, is already fully paid for through a
combination of Federal appropriations and State funding.
Allowing for continued research, public access, and permanent
preservation of the island is a priority shared by elected officials,
conservation groups, and local residents on both sides of the sound.
The GSA must stop advancing the sale of this island and stop wasting
taxpayer money on retaining expensive real estate firms in violation of
the will of the people and in spite of pending litigation over this
proposed sale.
This amendment allows Congress to use the power of the purse to stop
the GSA from marketing or selling the island while we continue the
fight for a permanent solution that will preserve the island for
conservation and education.
[[Page H6537]]
Mr. Chairman, this amendment passed the House on a bipartisan vote in
2016 as part of Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations. My similar stand-alone bill, the Plum Island
Preservation Act, has also passed with unanimous support in the House
now in two consecutive Congresses.
Mr. Chairman, I once again urge all of my colleagues to support this
bipartisan amendment.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I thank my partners from Connecticut, Rosa
DeLauro and Joe Courtney, for once again introducing this amendment
with me. I also thank my additional cosponsors from New York, Kathleen
Rice, Tom Suozzi, and John Faso. The broad range of bipartisan support
for this effort throughout our region shows what an important gem Plum
Island is for our environment and for our history.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 83 Offered by Mr. Palmer
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 83
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division B (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available under title IV
or title VIII of this Act may be used by the District of
Columbia government to carry out the Health Insurance
Requirement Amendment Act of 2018 (subtitle A of title V of
the Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Support Act of 2018; D.C. Bill
22-753).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Palmer) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit funds from
being used to carry out the District of Columbia's Health Insurance
Requirement Amendment Act of 2018. This is essentially the District's
version of ObamaCare's individual mandate with a few important and
troubling distinctions.
The mandate requires that all residents of the District of Columbia
purchase government-sanctioned health insurance or pay what the
District calls a ``shared responsibility payment.''
However, the mandate goes even further by allowing D.C. authorities
to place liens on, seize, and sell the property of their residents if
they are unwilling or unable to pay the tax penalty.
Let me repeat. If a D.C. resident chooses not to purchase the
government-sanctioned health insurance plan or purchases health
insurance that doesn't meet the District of Columbia's preferences,
they will now have the authority to impose a tax penalty or seize and
sell that person's assets.
But it gets worse.
Every plan available through the D.C. Health Link covers elective
abortion, which means that the mandate forces individuals who don't
wish to purchase this coverage to choose between violating their
conscience and facing a tax penalty or, even worse, having their
property seized.
I am sure you will hear objections to Congress meddling in District
of Columbia affairs, but I will remind those objectors that Article I,
section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution vests Congress, not the D.C.
City Council, with the authority to exercise exclusive legislation in
all cases whatsoever regarding the District.
When the District of Columbia makes it a priority to force the
residents to buy insurance coverage they neither want nor need, it is
incumbent upon Congress to exercise their constitutional authority and
prohibit the use of funds to carry out this policy.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in strong opposition to
this amendment interfering in the local affairs of the District of
Columbia.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, you wouldn't know it from hearing the
Member on the other side speak, but in 1973, Congress passed the
bipartisan District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which created a locally
elected government. According to the Home Rule Act, a central purpose
of the act was to ``relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon
essentially local District matters.''
In his signing statement of the Home Rule Act, President Nixon wrote,
``It will give the people of the District of Columbia the right . . .
to govern themselves in local affairs. . . . `'
Yet the bill before us would either repeal or block the District of
Columbia from carrying out or enacting five local laws.
I filed amendments to strike all of these undemocratic riders, but
the Rules Committee has blocked me from offering any of them on the
floor, even though they all complied with House rules. I have gotten
some of these amendments off in the past, and I intend to do so again,
because this matter has to go to the Senate as well, Mr. Chairman.
Adding insult to injury, the Rules Committee allowed this and one
other undemocratic amendment to be offered.
Republicans were not satisfied with sabotaging the Affordable Care
Act by, among other things, reducing the penalty for failure to comply
with the individual responsibility requirement to $0 in the recently
enacted GOP tax scam. The ACA remains standing and popular,
nevertheless, throughout the country.
Mr. Palmer has moved to sabotage, therefore, the District of
Columbia's local health insurance market, too, and deny the 700,000
Federal taxpaying Americans who live in the District of Columbia access
to quality, affordable health insurance coverage.
This antidemocratic healthcare amendment is offered by Mr. Palmer of
Alabama, who doesn't live in and is not responsible to the people of
the District of Columbia, but answers to another district. I doubt that
Representative Palmer's constituents want him taking time from their
business to meddle in the business of another Member's district.
This amendment would prohibit the District from spending its own
local funds, consisting solely of local taxes and fees, to carry out a
local District of Columbia bill that requires individuals to maintain
health coverage or to pay a penalty for failure to do so.
I remind the House that three States have adopted this same approach.
In response to Republican efforts to sabotage the ACA, the District
of Columbia, like States across the country, decided to do what they
could and, in our case, convened a working group that consisted of
businesses, providers, consumers, and insurers on how to preserve
quality, affordable coverage locally.
In February, the working group unanimously recommended creating a
local individual responsibility requirement--and I thought the other
side was all about localism--and the District of Columbia Health
Benefit Exchange Authority Executive Board unanimously supported the
recommendation.
{time} 2100
The District of Columbia Mayor then included an individual
responsibility of requirement in her budget, and the D.C. Council
debated and unanimously passed the Health Insurance Requirement
Amendment Act of 2018, as required by Congress. Thus, D.C. will join
three States in requiring residents to maintain health insurance
coverage, and more States are considering doing the very same thing.
I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this undemocratic, offensive, and
harmful amendment that would reduce enrollment in the D.C. individual
insurance market by 15 percent, and increase premiums. I ask the
gentleman to stay out of the business of my district.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
[[Page H6538]]
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chair, I want to applaud my good friend from
Alabama, Mr. Palmer, and my colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Walker,
for their work on this particular amendment.
I couldn't disagree more with the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia. This is not about individual liberties. In fact, this
amendment supports individual liberties. It keeps liens from being
placed on property.
Quite frankly, Congress, overwhelmingly has supported repealing the
individual mandate. And for some city to say that they are wanting to
implement an individual mandate, it has nothing to do with healthcare.
It has more to do with political statements.
And I can tell you that to have the particular initiative here in
Washington, D.C., limit short-term health plans and, certainly,
association health plans, it, again, is not about healthcare.
So I would encourage an adoption of the amendment and stand for
liberty.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the other distinguished
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker).
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment.
In December, Congress passed historic tax reform that frees people
from ObamaCare's erroneous individual mandate which punished lower and
middle income families for not buying health insurance they don't want
or cannot afford.
Well, how does D.C. respond? The City Council has now decreed that
all residents must buy health insurance, no matter the cost or need.
And listen, if you refuse, not only will you be financially penalized,
but the D.C. government can seize your personal property. What?
The idea that a local government can force you to buy a private
product just because of your zip code is unjust and un-American.
Congress, which has direct oversight of D.C., cannot allow the
District to ignore Federal law and use politics to punish their
residents.
I urge my colleagues to support the measure.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Curtis). The gentleman from Alabama has 1
minute remaining.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen from North Carolina,
Mr. Meadows and Mr. Walker, for their support of this amendment. And I
would just like to point out, as Mr. Meadows was pointing out, this is
really about defending rights.
This amendment prohibits the District of Columbia Council from
imposing on individual property rights. It denies people the option to
buy less expensive health insurance and insurance that they want and
need.
I would like to also point out that in ObamaCare, even there, there
was no force imposed on people to buy health insurance. They could pay
the penalty, or they could apply for a waiver with the IRS and,
literally, millions did that. At no time did ObamaCare pose a threat to
people's property rights, as this amendment does.
So, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to stand up for the rights of
the citizens of the District of Columbia to protect their property
rights and support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 84 Offered by Mr. Meadows
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 84
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division B (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to carry out section 1334 of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chair, before I get into my amendment, I want to
thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the entire staff for not
only a very thoughtful bill that really requires very few amendments,
but really working with Members of all different ideological stripes in
our conference. And I look forward to being able to support this when
it comes up for a vote tomorrow.
My amendment prohibits funds from being used by the Office of
Personnel Management, better known as OPM, to administer the
ObamaCare's multistate program.
ObamaCare required OPM to contract with health insurers to make
multistate plans available to consumers in all the States, and D.C., by
2017.
Now, there is only one problem with that. There is only one State
participating. And yet, here we continue to fund it.
The multistate plan program has failed to meet its statutory
requirements. It has failed to generate competition in the healthcare
marketplace. And it has failed to lower health insurance premiums.
According to OPM, the government has spent $53 million on
administrative costs for this failed program. The evidence is clear:
This program doesn't work and it is a waste of taxpayer dollars.
In fact, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on
Taxation said eliminating funding for this plan will not affect the
levels of competition or premiums in the insurance markets, nor would
it affect any ObamaCare subsidies.
So my amendment does not take funds away from OPM. It leaves more
money for OPM to continue its other mission-critical programs without
having to waste the time and resources on a poorly-functioning
multistate plan program.
I have got letters from the OPM, Office of Personnel Management, who
administers the plan, supporting the elimination of this program. I
also have a letter from the National Active and Retired Federal
Employees Association, better known as NARFE, who represent the
interests of more than 5 million Federal employees and retirees and
their survivors, supporting the elimination of this program.
So finally, this program is widely viewed by analysts on the both the
left and the right as either a de facto public option or a plausible
foundation for a future public option.
The House should vote overwhelmingly to do away with this, and I urge
my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, to do so.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. QUIGLEY. This amendment is another in a long line of attacks on
the Affordable Care Act. It is, unfortunately, an example of
Republicans turning to the appropriations process, instead of working
through the appropriate channels via the authorization committees.
Weighing down bills with partisan riders does nothing but make it
more difficult to enact these spending bills, especially in a timely
manner.
Turning to the substance of the amendment, our constituents would be
better served if we focused our efforts on extending quality,
affordable coverage to more individuals, not eliminating plans.
Healthcare is an essential right, and a healthy America is a more
productive, safer, and better place to call home. I suggest my
colleagues vote ``no'' on the Meadows amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman opposite with his
articulation of opposition; but I find it
[[Page H6539]]
interesting because the last time I checked, he is not from Arkansas,
which is the only State that actually is benefiting from this. And yet,
his State, my State, and every other State is paying for this for the
benefit. And I would use that word very liberally, because it is not
really benefiting them. They just keep it there. It is not lowering
premiums in Arkansas.
So at what time do we look at a failed Federal program and say enough
is enough? I think that that day is today, and I urge all my colleagues
to support this amendment.
I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership. I urge a vote in
support of this particular amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina will be postponed.
Amendment No. 85 Offered by Mr. Rothfus
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 85
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division B (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available under title IV
or title VIII of this Act may be used by the District of
Columbia government to carry out section 47-4471, D.C.
Official Code, with respect to the liability of a taxpayer
under section 47-5108, D.C. Official Code (as added by
subtitle A of title V of the Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Support
Act of 2018; D.C. Bill 22-753).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment,
a narrow amendment which simply prohibits any funds from going toward
the District of Columbia from seizing property of citizens not in
compliance with the District's individual healthcare mandate. It is a
narrower amendment than the one we just debated.
My amendment does not take away the mandate. It simply says one of
the remedies cannot be the seizure of property if an individual does
not comply with the mandate to buy health insurance.
The individual mandate is, of course, controversial. Even Barack
Obama opposed it when he was running in 2008. In one of the debates in
the 2008 primary, then Senator and Presidential candidate Obama said:
``A mandate means that in some fashion, everybody will be forced to buy
health insurance. . . . But I believe,'' then candidate Obama said,
``the problem is not that folks are trying to avoid getting healthcare.
The problem is they can't afford it.''
He separately said:
If the mandate was the solution, we could try to solve
homelessness by mandating that everyone buy a house. The
reason why they don't have the house is they don't have the
money. So our focus has been on reducing costs and making it
available.
Regardless of what anyone on either side of the aisle thinks about a
requirement to buy health insurance, it seems ill-advised and unjust to
take away property from people that cannot even afford insurance.
I have to imagine that this was an oversight in writing the law,
because surely no legislators could have intended such a harsh result.
I would note, Mr. Chairman, that in 2015, 6,902 residents of the
District of Columbia were forced to pay the mandate penalty. Seventy-
five percent of them made less than $50,000.
I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in
supporting this commonsense measure, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in strong opposition to yet
another amendment that interferes with another Member's district,
indicating that there is more than one Member in this body that does
not have enough to do at home.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia is
recognized for 5 minutes.
{time} 2115
Ms. NORTON. A few minutes ago, we debated an amendment offered by
Representative Gary Palmer of Alabama that would prohibit the District
from spending its own local funds, consisting solely of taxes and fees,
to carry out a local D.C. bill, the Health Insurance Requirement
Amendment Act of 2018, that requires individuals to maintain health
insurance coverage or pay a tax penalty for failure to do so.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
July 18, 2018, on page H6539, the following appeared: A few
minutes ago, we debated an amendment offered by Representative
Gary Palmer of Alabama that would prohibit the District from
spending its own local funds,
The online version has been corrected to read: Ms. NORTON. A few
minutes ago, we debated an amendment offered by Representative
Gary Palmer of Alabama that would prohibit the District from
spending its own local funds,
========================= END NOTE =========================
This amendment before us now offered by this Member, Mr. Rothfus of
Pennsylvania, seeks to weaken the coverage requirement by prohibiting
D.C. from spending its local funds to carry out a method of tax
collection in existing D.C. law to enforce the penalty.
Mr. Rothfus has plenty to do representing his own district, but is
now venturing far afield into a district represented by another Member
of the House of Representatives.
In particular, D.C. would be prohibited from using its local funds to
collect the tax penalty by distraint, or the seizure of property to
obtain payment, for failure to pay.
The District is not unique in authorizing distraint, and it is seldom
used. I can't think of when it has been used. The seizure of property
to settle tax debt is standard practice for the Federal Government,
States, and cities across the country, including, would you believe,
Representative Rothfus' State of Pennsylvania.
Under title 53 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, section
16031, Pennsylvania jurisdictions are allowed to collect taxes by
distraint. I wonder if the sponsor has asked his own legislature to
repeal that statute. Let him start at home before he tries to repeal
something passed unanimously by the council of the District of
Columbia.
It is true that the Affordable Care Act prohibited the Internal
Revenue Service from seizing property to collect the individual
responsibility requirement tax penalty, although it did authorize the
IRS to withhold the penalty amount from future tax refunds, which
amounts to the very same thing. However, each State and the District is
free to authorize distraint to collect the local individual
responsibility requirement tax penalty.
However, it is important to note, and I emphasize, that the District
rarely seizes property to collect taxes owed. When it does, it does so
only as a last resort. I can't think of when this has even happened. If
a payment plan or settlement could not be established with a taxpayer,
the District would first turn to remedies like withholding tax refunds
or garnishing wages, not seizing a house or a car.
I am sure that is what happens in Mr. Rothfus' State of Pennsylvania
as well.
I will not tolerate Republicans, this Member or any other, using the
District of Columbia to score points with opponents of the ACA. They
haven't been able to beat the ACA.
This amendment is one of several that constitute the most significant
abuse of Federal power over the District of Columbia since Republicans
took control in 2011.
So the ACA remains popular throughout the United States. They just
can't bear that. So Mr. Rothfus moves on to the District, to see if he
can do to the District what his side has not been able to do in the
country for the ACA.
We found greater respect for democratic self-rule in the Senate in
getting such riders removed. We intend to do so again.
Mr. Chair, I say to the gentleman, mind your own business.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this abuse of power, and I
urge a ``no'' vote.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the gentlewoman would
realize that this amendment scores points for the 75 percent of the
people who were subject to the penalty who made less than $50,000 a
year. That is what happens when we have the mandate.
[[Page H6540]]
And it is Federal policy now, Federal policy, that holds that people
should not be punished if they can't afford to purchase health
insurance. They certainly shouldn't be punished by having their
property seized.
And if it is only a few people, as the gentlewoman says, I would
wonder why she is opposed to this amendment.
This is the Federal city. It is Federal policy that people should not
be so punished.
President Obama, when he was running for President in 2008, was
pretty clear. He knew what would happen. He observed what was going on
with the Massachusetts mandate. He said:
Now, Massachusetts has a mandate right now. They have
exempted 20 percent of the uninsured because they've
concluded that that 20 percent can't afford it. In some
cases, there are people who are paying fines and still can't
afford it. So now they are worse off than they were. They
don't have health insurance and they're paying a fine. And in
order for you to force people to get health insurance, you
have to have a very harsh, stiff penalty.
President Obama understood that. He understood, as a candidate, that
it would be wrong to seize property.
Again, when you look at the people who were being levied the penalty
in 2015, when the ACA had a penalty, 75 percent of the people who paid
the penalty in the District of Columbia made less than $50,000 a year.
Again, President Obama as a candidate:
I think it is important to recognize that, if you are going
to mandate the purchase of insurance and it is not
affordable, then there is going to have to be some
enforcement mechanism that the government uses. It may charge
people who don't already have healthcare fines or have to
take it out of their paychecks.
And candidate Obama said:
And that, I don't think, is helping people without health
insurance.
Again, he liked to keep on going and talking about Massachusetts.
What is happening in Massachusetts, then-candidate Obama said:
There are articles being written about it which are that
folks are paying fines that don't have healthcare. They would
rather go ahead and take the fine, because they cannot afford
coverage.
Mr. Chairman, this is for the folks who may not be able to afford it,
people making less than $50,000 a year. They shouldn't have their
property seized.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to accept this commonsense, narrow
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
will be postponed.
The Chair understands that amendment No. 86 will not be offered.
Amendment No. 87 Offered by Mr. McHenry
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 87
printed in House Report 115-830.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of division B (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the United States Postal Service to--
(1) implement any approach in the report of the Office of
Inspector General of the Postal Service on May 21, 2015,
entitled ``The Road Ahead for Postal Financial Services''; or
(2) carry out any pilot project pursuant to the report.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It would bar
the United States Postal Service from expanding on its current
offerings of financial services and banking products.
I think it is important that the Postal Service focus on its core
business of delivering the mail. While the idea of postal banking is
nothing new, it is still a terrible idea.
In 2015, the inspector general for the Postal Service took the highly
unusual step in proposing that the Postal Service should expand its
banking services in areas like prepaid cards, savings products, and
money orders. Since then, postal banking advocates have used the report
to argue that the Postal Service has the authority to offer more
banking products, all without congressional oversight or consent.
Recent reports indicate that these efforts include using a pilot
program to implement this awful idea. That is the reason why I am
offering my amendment.
To make things even worse, rather than proposing the idea
legislatively, the current strategy of those advocating for postal
banking is to institute the program via behind-the-scenes negotiation
between government bureaucrats and liberal special interest groups.
This amendment draws a clear, bright line that says that no taxpayer
money shall be used to subsidize these quiet attempts at making postal
banking a reality.
Proponents of postal banking argue that it would help the under-
banked in this country, but the simple fact is that socialized banking
is not the answer.
Instead, we have to focus on working together in a bipartisan way
around financial innovation as the pathway toward financial inclusion.
Postal banking is a giant step backward. The Postal Service, as I
said, should focus on its core mission of delivering our mail.
Postal banking would simply create yet another government program
that fails to solve the underlying problem.
Further, if Congress does not step in and stop this now, we endanger
our small community banks and credit unions that are already in
trouble, while at the same time putting an additional burden on the
American taxpayer, who will be stuck footing the bill for this horrible
idea.
This amendment protects the American taxpayers from being forced to
finance a terrible idea called postal banking. Its passage would also
maintain the role of Congress in determining the fate of the Postal
Service and postal banking, not government bureaucrats and interest
groups.
Mr. Chair, I urge support of my amendment, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, sadly, the provisions contained in this
amendment would block the Postal Service from running a pilot program
designed to improve operations and save taxpayers money, like allowing
travelers to submit passport applications at post offices across the
country. It would severely limit the potential of one of our most
essential, constitutionally mandated government agencies, and hurt our
communities and our citizens in the process.
I represent not only countless letter carriers, but thousands of
Ohioans who rely on the Postal Service for timely delivery of their
Social Security checks, electric bills, and birthday cards from loved
ones.
Expanding the services provided at our Nation's post offices would
achieve two ends: supporting a great Federal job provider, and helping
our communities and citizens at the same time.
At a time when banks and other institutions are abandoning inner
cities and rural communities, in my district alone, post offices
present a perfect medium to collocate, including with traditional banks
or credit unions.
For example, in my home State, 18.6 percent of Cleveland households
have no checking or savings account, and 24.1 percent of households are
under-banked, forced to use costly payday and auto title firms or
currency exchange stores to cash paychecks or make consumer loans. More
than 35 percent of Cleveland's 389,000 residents live below the Federal
poverty line.
Many post offices are located in bank deserts. Fifty-nine percent of
post offices are in ZIP Codes with either zero banks or only one bank
branch.
By giving the Postal Service the opportunity to serve our communities
in
[[Page H6541]]
a more expansive capacity, we could also put the Postal Service back on
the right track financially, bring back hundreds of American jobs, and,
in so doing, restore faith in one of our most fundamental government
services.
The Postal Service is already providing an impressive, expansive, and
affordable service to all the American people--and by the American
people, by the way. I am fighting in Congress to support the
hardworking employees of the Postal Service and our citizens,
especially in underserved communities across not just my district, but
our country.
It is really horrendous to go into communities that have no financial
services, where people are being ripped off every day.
Mr. Chair, I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort and
oppose this misguided amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Connolly), a very able and intelligent Congressman.
{time} 2130
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time we have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment which would limit the Postal Service's ability to offer
products and services on a pilot basis that could help the Postal
Service find its way to financial stability.
At a time when the Postal Service is bleeding red ink, this bill
takes away existing revenue and potential revenue. In fiscal year 2017,
the Postal Service reported a loss of $2.7 billion, marking the 11th
straight year in the red.
And just coincidentally, it got in the red because Congress, in 2006,
restricted what the Postal Service could do. Well, it really worked
well: 11 years of red ink, putting the Postal Service in insolvency,
technically. To address the Postal Service's financial situation, the
Postal Service needs financial relief, not further restrictions.
H.R. 6076, the Postal Reform Act of 2018, which I introduced with the
gentleman from North Carolina, Congressman Mark Meadows, on a
bipartisan basis, passed the authorizing committee unanimously, and we
are hoping to take it to the floor, and that is where it belongs, in an
authorization bill, not as a rider on the appropriations bill.
This bill even addresses issues raised by the gentleman from North
Carolina's amendment. Under the Postal Reform Act, the Postal Service
would have to limit any new nonpostal products and services to only
those provided to State, local, and Tribal governments and Federal
agencies. The bill would preserve existing nonpostal products and
services.
However, this amendment is much more restrictive than that. This
amendment includes a blanket prohibition that would prevent the Postal
Service from implementing any other recommendations from a May 2015
Postal Service Inspector General Report, including improving its
existing range of financial services, such as money orders.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Ranking Member Lowey,
I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair, this amendment, as I said, includes blanket
prohibitions that would prevent the Postal Service from implementing
the reports and recommendations of the 2015 Postal Service Inspector
General Report, including improving its existing range of financial
services, such as money orders.
I might add, the assertions that have been made that there has been
no congressional oversight, that is not true. My committee, the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has had numerous hearings on
the Postal Service, numerous briefings with the Postmaster General and
her predecessor and his predecessor.
We have marked up numerous bills. We finally got one we could agree
on, and it is pending. That is how this should be done--not piecemeal,
not in a way that further constrains and circumscribes the Postal
Service that can only lead to more red ink.
We are trying to save the Postal Service, which is mandated in the
Constitution. It has a requirement for universal service that private
sector firms do not. And we have allowed some pilot programs to see if
they can work. They are not a threat to financial institutions.
So we are fixing a problem here that does not really exist, and we
are going to do real harm to a Postal Service we have already harmed
with the 2006 legislation Congress passed in a lame-duck session in the
name of reform, and it backfired. It blew up, and it has done
incalculable damage which we are now trying to repair to the Postal
Service.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this unwarranted intrusion
into the prerogatives of the authorizing committee that is doing its
job and has a bipartisan bill that passed our committee unanimously,
which is a remarkable statement for the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee.
We ought not to be legislating on an appropriations bill in this way
with respect to the Postal Service. It deserves better, our consumers
deserve better, Postal Service customers deserve better, and we can do
better.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the
American Bankers Association, the Credit Union National Association,
the Independent Community Bankers of America, and the National
Association of Federally Insured Credit Unions in support of this
amendment.
July 18, 2018.
Dear Congressman Patrick McHenry: On behalf of our
organizations and the Americans we represent, we write to
express support of your Amendment to Division B, within the
Financial Services and General Government section of H.R.
6147. This amendment would prohibit the use of any taxpayer
funds for postal banking and financial services and prohibit
the creation of any new pilot program that would expand this
business practice through collective bargaining.
While the USPS serves an important role in delivering mail
and packages, we are concerned about expanding the Postal
Service's primary role and allowing the government to compete
with the private sector. This would include lower fees,
subsidized services and even competing based on real estate
and office location.
Consideration of expanding postal operations to engage in
banking and financial services is not a new concept. It has
been touted as a solution to help stabilize the US Postal
Service's financial practices. The cost alone to hire
additional workers and retrain existing employees to offer
banking products would further undermine the Postal Service's
budgetary issues.
Additionally, we have reservations about the ability of the
Postal Service to safeguard customers' identities and
information such as bank accounts and passwords. Regardless
of the federal agency, the government has shown it can be
slow to react to cyber threats, allowing bad actors to access
citizens' private records.
It is clear the US Postal Service's financial health is
troubling. Expanding USPS's operations to compete with
private sector banks and credit unions is not the answer. We,
the undersigned organizations, support your amendment to H.R.
6147 and encourage its inclusion in the final appropriations
legislation.
Sincerely,
Grover G. Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform;
Tim Chapman, Executive Director, Heritage Action; Tom
Schatz, President, Council for Citizens Against
Government Waste; Adam Brandon, President,
FreedomWorks; Brandon Arnold, Executive Vice President,
National Taxpayers Union; Kevin Kosar, Vice President
of Policy, R Street Institute; Andrew F. Quinlan,
President, Center for Freedom and Prosperity; Iain
Murray, Vice President for Strategy and Sr. Fellow,
Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Who supports the amendment?
American Bankers Association, Americans for Tax Reform,
Center for Freedom and Prosperity, Citizens Against
Government Waste, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Credit
Union National Association, Freedom Works, Heritage Action,
Independent Community Bankers of American, National
Association of Federally Insured Credit Unions, National
Taxpayers Union, R Street Institute.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I also include in the Record a letter on
behalf of Americans for Tax Reform, Heritage Action for America,
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, FreedomWorks, National
Taxpayer Union, R Street, and the Center for Freedom and Prosperity,
along with the Competitive Enterprise Institute in support of this
amendment.
[[Page H6542]]
July 17, 2018.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf of
the members of the American Bankers Association, the Credit
Union National Association, the Independent Community Bankers
of America, and the National Association of Federally Insured
Credit Unions, I write to urge the adoption of Congressman
Patrick McHenry's amendment to the Financial Services and
General Government (FSGG) appropriations bill to prohibit the
U.S. Postal Service from providing banking services.
Financial institutions are strongly supportive of the
Postal Service, as one of the largest mailers of any industry
group in America. Physical mail remains an important
communications channel for banks and credit unions. Financial
institutions of all sizes use the mail to communicate with
current and potential customers, to send statements and
receive payments, and to market new products and services to
their customers. Financial companies are also a vital revenue
source for the Postal Service, generating billions of dollars
of annual revenue that supports postal infrastructure. For
these reasons, our members are committed to identifying long-
term solutions to ensure an efficient, self-sustaining, and
affordable U.S. postal system.
Postal banking is not one of those solutions. Although
there have been a number of proposals over the past few years
to turn the U.S. Postal Service into the world's largest
shadow banking system, we are very concerned that allowing
the U.S. Postal Service to provide banking services will be
beyond the Postal Service's core competencies, will raise a
number of serious regulatory and consumer protection
questions, and will present significant competitive issues
for private sector entities. Congress should encourage the
Postal Service to focus on its core business of physical mail
delivery, and not be distracted by expanding the mission to
businesses outside of the Postal Service's area of expertise.
Most significantly, postal banking does not address the
Postal Service's financial challenges, and may well make them
worse. The U.S. Postal Service agrees. The Postal Service has
strongly argued against authority to provide banking
services, noting that providing these products would almost
certainly cause it to lose money:
``The Postal Service's mission is to provide the American
public with trusted, affordable, universal mail service. Our
core function is delivery, not banking . . . Profit margins
on these financial services businesses across the industry
are very low . . . so even if we achieved $1 billion in
revenue and executed well, our cash position would only
increase by an estimated $100-200 million, which will not
materially change our financial condition--we need to focus
on the core delivery business.''
The Postal Service went on to note that to the extent that
more affordable pricing of financial services is a primary
goal of postal banking efforts, ``[m]ore affordable appears
to mean at a lower price level than the free market provides
today . . . Since established financial services firms make a
slim margin on revenue . . . it seems unlikely that there is
any significant room to lower prices without incurring a
loss, and at a minimum, a lower profit margin.''
No doubt, postal reform is a serious topic that Congress
must confront. We encourage Congress to enact legislation
that would reduce costs and increase efficiencies to put the
U.S. Postal Service on a sound and sustainable financial path
over the long run, but the provision of banking services is
not an acceptable solution. We look forward to continuing to
work with you on postal reform efforts in the coming months,
but urge you to support Congressman McHenry's amendment to
the FSGG appropriations bill to ban the Postal Service from
providing banking services when it is on the House Floor this
week.
Sincerely,
American Bankers Association, Credit Union National
Association, Independent Community Bankers of America,
National Association of Federally Insured Credit Unions.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that the Postal Service,
as my colleagues across the aisle say, is a constitutional function. It
is really important that the Postal Service do its mission of
delivering the mail.
What we don't think we should do is give a government bureau, through
a nonlegislative means, the right to expand into nonessential services
for a part of the government that is bleeding money. An institution
that cannot balance its own books should not be getting into the
offering of credit or the movement of money and funds.
While I am in favor of postal reform, and while I support my letter
carriers, I do not favor postal banking. I think it is important for
this Congress to put a note down that we are in opposition to that, and
that is why I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, as the designee of Ranking Member Lowey, I
move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I would just like to respond to the gentleman.
The offer of this amendment should never be on an appropriation bill.
This is one of these extraneous riders that belongs in other bills, and
it is very damaging to the future of communities across this country,
thousands of which lack banking services and financial services of any
kind.
What we are talking about here is something simple. It is something
very simple: a pilot program. We are not saying this is going to happen
all over the United States. This gentleman wants to deny the ability of
communities to have any kind of normal financial service where they
have been redlined by the very letters that the gentleman just asked to
be placed in the Record. Those very institutions abandoned the
communities that we are seeking to serve.
I am really disappointed that the gentleman would want people to be
subjected to usurious interest rates or to a lack of any kind of
financial service, even paying your electric bill, for heaven's sake.
So, for two reasons, I ask my colleagues to vote against the
gentleman's amendment: number one, it doesn't belong in this bill; and
number two, it does a great disservice to the people of this country.
They have a right to better service.
The Postal Service is coast to coast. It is audited, it is properly
staffed, and it is universal. Whether you are poor or whether you are
rich in this country, you have a right. You have a right to be treated
fairly by the institutions that this Nation manages.
Mr. Chair, I want to congratulate those who work for our great Postal
Service. I ask that the gentleman's amendment be defeated, and let us
support what is in the Constitution of the United States, which is
respect for the Postal Service, coast to coast to every citizen.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina.
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina will be postponed.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Ohio
seek recognition?
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, you know, if they would operate these
microphones for the Democrats as well as they operate them for the
Republicans, maybe we could be heard on this floor, and especially for
the women Democrats, I might add.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman's request for a recorded vote has
been postponed.
Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair, before we can conclude our debate, I
wanted to thank Chairman Calvert and Ranking Betty McCollum of the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee for their
work; and also the Financial Services and General Government
Subcommittee Chairman Tom Graves and Ranking Member Mike Quigley for
the great job they did; and for the men and women behind them that make
up the professional and personal staff of the Appropriations Committee.
As of today, all 12 appropriations bills have been released. With the
passage of this legislation, the full House will have halfway done all
of our bills on the floor.
Mr. Chairman, we continue our momentum by passing H.R. 6147. I guess
that will be tomorrow, and I urge support of the bill.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H6543]]
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of Georgia). Pursuant to clause 6 of
rule XVIII, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in
House Report 115-830 on which further proceedings were postponed, in
the following order:
Amendment No. 43 by Mr. Mullin of Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 44 by Mr. Mullin of Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 46 by Mrs. McMorris Rodgers of Washington.
Amendment No. 48 by Mr. Lamborn of Colorado.
Amendment No. 49 by Mr. Lamborn of Colorado.
Amendment No. 50 by Mr. Goodlatte of Virginia.
Amendment No. 51 by Mr. Gallego of Arizona.
Amendment No. 60 by Mr. Pearce of New Mexico.
Amendment No. 62 by Mr. Pearce of New Mexico.
Amendment No. 63 by Mr. Gosar of Arizona.
Amendment No. 69 by Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia.
Amendment No. 70 by Mr. Smith of Missouri.
Amendment No. 81 by Mr. Carbajal of California.
Amendment No. 83 by Mr. Palmer of Alabama.
Amendment No. 84 by Mr. Meadows of North Carolina.
Amendment No. 85 by Mr. Rothfus of Pennsylvania.
Amendment No. 87 by Mr. McHenry of North Carolina.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Mullin
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Mullin) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 215,
noes 194, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 346]
AYES--215
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
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
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
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--194
Adams
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
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
Coffman
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Faso
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Mast
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
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reichert
Rooney, Francis
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roskam
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Stefanik
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Upton
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--19
Aguilar
Bass
Black
Blackburn
Cardenas
DeSantis
Gaetz
Hanabusa
Hoyer
Paulsen
Peters
Peterson
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Shea-Porter
Shuster
Sinema
Speier
Walz
{time} 2203
Mr. COFFMAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 346.
Stated against:
Mr. AGUILAR. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 346.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 346.
Miss RICE of New York. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 346.
Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 346.
Amendment No. 44 Offered by Mr. Mullin
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Mullin) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 215,
noes 199, not voting 14, as follows:
[[Page H6544]]
[Roll No. 347]
AYES--215
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
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
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
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
Jones
Jordan
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
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--199
Adams
Aguilar
Amodei
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Bergman
Beyer
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
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Faso
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McHenry
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Rice (NY)
Rooney, Francis
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roskam
Roybal-Allard
Royce (CA)
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Stefanik
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--14
Bass
Black
Blackburn
Cardenas
DeSantis
Gaetz
Hanabusa
Hoyer
Joyce (OH)
Peterson
Richmond
Shuster
Speier
Walz
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2207
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 56 Offered by Ms. McMorris Rodgers
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. McMorris Rodgers) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 227,
noes 185, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 348]
AYES--227
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cloud
Coffman
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
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
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn B.
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)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Waters, Maxine
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--185
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Barragan
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
Cole
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
[[Page H6545]]
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
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
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--16
Bass
Black
Blackburn
Cardenas
DeSantis
Gaetz
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hoyer
Peterson
Richmond
Scott, David
Shuster
Speier
Walz
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2210
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
AMENDMENT NO. 48 OFFERED BY MR. LAMBORN
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Lamborn) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213,
noes 202, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 349]
AYES--213
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cloud
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
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
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
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--202
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brooks (AL)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
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
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Upton
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Bass
Black
Blackburn
Cardenas
DeSantis
Gaetz
Hanabusa
Hoyer
Peterson
Richmond
Shuster
Speier
Walz
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2213
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California changed her vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
AMENDMENT NO. 49 OFFERED BY MR. LAMBORN
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Lamborn) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213,
noes 201, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 350]
AYES--213
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cloud
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
[[Page H6546]]
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
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
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palmer
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
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--201
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brooks (AL)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
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
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Faso
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Mast
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Stefanik
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Upton
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--14
Bass
Black
Blackburn
Cardenas
DeSantis
Gaetz
Hanabusa
Hoyer
Palazzo
Peterson
Richmond
Shuster
Speier
Walz
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2216
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 50 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Goodlatte) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213,
noes 202, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 351]
AYES--213
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
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
Jones
Jordan
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
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
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stewart
Stivers
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--202
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brooks (AL)
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
Coffman
Cohen
Comstock
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Faso
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harris
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
[[Page H6547]]
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Rice (NY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Stefanik
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Upton
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Bass
Black
Blackburn
Cardenas
DeSantis
Gaetz
Hanabusa
Hoyer
Peterson
Richmond
Shuster
Speier
Walz
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2219
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 51 Offered by Mr. Gallego
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Gallego) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 203,
noes 212, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 352]
AYES--203
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brooks (AL)
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
Coffman
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Faso
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roskam
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Stefanik
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
NOES--212
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barragan
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
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)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
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
NOT VOTING--13
Bass
Black
Blackburn
Cardenas
DeSantis
Gaetz
Hanabusa
Hoyer
Peterson
Richmond
Shuster
Speier
Walz
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2222
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 60 Offered by Mr. Pearce
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico
(Mr. Pearce) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206,
noes 209, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 353]
AYES--206
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cloud
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Foxx
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
[[Page H6548]]
King (IA)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
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--209
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brooks (AL)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
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
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Faso
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garrett
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Huffman
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Mast
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Stefanik
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Upton
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Bass
Black
Blackburn
Cardenas
DeSantis
Gaetz
Hanabusa
Hoyer
Peterson
Richmond
Shuster
Speier
Walz
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2225
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 62 Offered by Mr. Pearce
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico
(Mr. Pearce) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216,
noes 199, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 354]
AYES--216
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (IN)
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
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
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)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
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)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
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--199
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brooks (AL)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
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
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Faso
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grothman
Gutierrez
Hastings
Heck
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Mast
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
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Stefanik
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
[[Page H6549]]
Torres
Tsongas
Upton
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Bass
Black
Blackburn
Cardenas
DeSantis
Gaetz
Hanabusa
Hoyer
Peterson
Richmond
Shuster
Speier
Walz
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2227
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 63 Offered by Mr. Gosar
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Gosar) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193,
noes 220, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 355]
AYES--193
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Culberson
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Foxx
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stewart
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
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--220
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Comstock
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Faso
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings
Heck
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Huffman
Hurd
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Knight
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McHenry
McNerney
McSally
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roskam
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Stefanik
Stivers
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Trott
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Bass
Black
Blackburn
Cardenas
Crawford
DeSantis
Gaetz
Hanabusa
Hoyer
Peterson
Richmond
Shuster
Speier
Tipton
Walz
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2231
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 69 Offered by Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Jody B. Hice) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174,
noes 240, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 356]
AYES--174
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Arrington
Babin
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cloud
Collins (GA)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curtis
Davidson
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (TX)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Russell
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
[[Page H6550]]
Sessions
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stewart
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Wagner
Walberg
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--240
Adams
Aguilar
Amodei
Bacon
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Capuano
Carbajal
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (NY)
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
Denham
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Faso
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings
Heck
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hollingsworth
Huffman
Hurd
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Knight
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
McSally
Meeks
Meng
Moolenaar
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Norcross
Nunes
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Roby
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roskam
Roybal-Allard
Royce (CA)
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Rutherford
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Stefanik
Stivers
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Trott
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Womack
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--14
Bass
Black
Blackburn
Cardenas
DeSantis
Gaetz
Hanabusa
Hoyer
Nolan
Peterson
Richmond
Shuster
Speier
Walz
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2233
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 70 Offered by Mr. Smith of Missouri
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Smith) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 215,
noes 199, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 357]
AYES--215
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blum
Bost
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cloud
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
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
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
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)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
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)
NOES--199
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
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
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
MacArthur
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
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Stefanik
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
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--14
Bass
Black
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Cardenas
DeSantis
Gaetz
Hanabusa
Hoyer
Peterson
Richmond
Shuster
Speier
Walz
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
[[Page H6551]]
{time} 2236
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 81 Offered by Mr. Carbajal
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Carbajal) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190,
noes 224, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 358]
AYES--190
Adams
Aguilar
Bacon
Barragan
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
Comer
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harris
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--224
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blum
Bost
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)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--14
Bass
Black
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Cardenas
DeSantis
Gaetz
Hanabusa
Hoyer
Peterson
Richmond
Shuster
Speier
Walz
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2239
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 83 Offered by Mr. Palmer
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Palmer) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 226,
noes 189, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 359]
AYES--226
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
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
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
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
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
[[Page H6552]]
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--189
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
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
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Faso
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
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--13
Bass
Black
Blackburn
Cardenas
DeSantis
Gaetz
Hanabusa
Hoyer
Peterson
Richmond
Shuster
Speier
Walz
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2243
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 84 Offered by Mr. Meadows
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Meadows) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223,
noes 192, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 360]
AYES--223
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
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
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
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)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
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
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
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--192
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
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
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Faso
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill
Himes
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
MacArthur
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
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Rice (NY)
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Stefanik
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--13
Bass
Black
Blackburn
Cardenas
DeSantis
Gaetz
Hanabusa
Hoyer
Peterson
Richmond
Shuster
Speier
Walz
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2246
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 85 Offered by Mr. Rothfus
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
[[Page H6553]]
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231,
noes 184, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 361]
AYES--231
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
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
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
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
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--184
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
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
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Bass
Black
Blackburn
Cardenas
DeSantis
Gaetz
Hanabusa
Hoyer
Peterson
Richmond
Shuster
Speier
Walz
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2248
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 87 Offered by Mr. McHenry
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. McHenry) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201,
noes 212, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 362]
AYES--201
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blum
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
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curtis
Davidson
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
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, Sam
Jordan
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--212
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bost
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
Cook
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
Denham
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
[[Page H6554]]
Evans
Faso
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Knight
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Mast
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
Meadows
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Stefanik
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Turner
Valadao
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--15
Amodei
Bass
Black
Blackburn
Cardenas
DeSantis
Gaetz
Hanabusa
Hoyer
Peterson
Richmond
Shuster
Sinema
Speier
Walz
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2252
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 362.
The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule,
the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Curtis) having assumed the chair, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Acting Chair
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration 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, and, pursuant to House Resolution
996, he reported the bill, as amended by that resolution, back to the
House with sundry further amendments adopted in the Committee of the
Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any further amendment reported from
the Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further
consideration of H.R. 6147 is postponed.
____________________