[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 180 (Wednesday, November 14, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H9514-H9522]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6784, MANAGE OUR WOLVES ACT, AND 
  PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 19, 2018, 
                       THROUGH NOVEMBER 26, 2018

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1142 and ask for its immediate consideration.

[[Page H9515]]

  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1142

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6784) to 
     provide for removal of the gray wolf in the contiguous 48 
     States from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
     published under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 
     any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Natural Resources; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit.
       Sec. 2.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     November 19, 2018, through November 26, 2018--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 3.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 4.  The provisions of section 7 of the War Powers 
     Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1546) shall not apply to House 
     Concurrent Resolution 138.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 1142, providing for further 
consideration of H.R. 6784, the Manage our Wolves Act. The rule 
provides for consideration of the legislation under a closed rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have 
cointroduced the underlying legislation considered in this rule today, 
H.R. 6784, the Manage our Wolves Act, to return management of the gray 
wolf species to the States. The States are best equipped to provide 
more effective and accountable management that responds to the needs of 
the ecosystem, other species, as well as local communities.
  On June 13, 2013, under the Obama administration, the Department of 
the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published in the 
Federal Register a proposed rule that would have removed the gray wolf 
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. This determination 
was made after Fish and Wildlife evaluated the classification status of 
gray wolves currently listed in the contiguous United States under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973 and found the ``best available 
scientific and commercial information indicates that the currently 
listed entity is not a valid species under the act.''
  Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to recover 
species to the point where they are no longer considered endangered or 
threatened. The gray wolf is currently found in nearly 50 countries 
around the world and has been placed in the classification of least 
concern for risk of extinction by the Species Survival Commission of 
the International Union for Conservation of Nature.
  Some of my colleagues have asked, well, if Fish and Wildlife has 
proposed to delist the species, why haven't they done so?
  That is a completely fair and reasonable question. Unfortunately, it 
is due to the fringe environmentalist efforts that any action from 
moving forward under the law has been stalled. So long as the courts 
are abused to prevent the proper adjudication of the law, we will not 
see progress made.
  It is because of this exploitation of the law that communities like 
those in central Washington suffer the consequences.
  Mr. Speaker, in my home State, the great State of Washington, the 
gray wolf is not listed in just the eastern third of the State, forcing 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the Washington Department of Fish and 
Wildlife to rely on an arbitrary political boundary when delineating 
and managing a species.
  I am sorry to share with you, Mr. Speaker, that as it turns out, 
surprisingly, wolves don't know boundaries or borders.
  The arbitrary nature of this current status of the law is broken, and 
it is impairing the ability of Fish and Wildlife managers on the ground 
to properly manage the species, as well as the ecosystem, including the 
harm it poses on other indigenous species.
  Mr. Speaker, this is why Congress, as a coequal branch, must act. 
This legislation directs the U.S. Department of the Interior to follow 
through with the proposed rule and delist the gray wolf from the list 
of endangered species.
  We have a responsibility to protect the incredibly diverse species 
both in Washington State and across this country. These efforts to 
protect our wildlife species must be based on sound science and an 
open, transparent process. Unfortunately, that is far from the case 
when it comes to the process dictating endangered species policies, 
particularly in this case of the gray wolf.
  For years now, Washington's Department of Fish and Wildlife has asked 
the Federal Government to delist the gray wolf and provide relief from 
the burdensome, broken process dictating species management. I have 
received letters from the director of the Washington State Department 
of Fish and Wildlife, one in 2015 and one earlier this year. In them, 
the letters read: ``Dear Congressman Newhouse, The Washington 
Department of Fish and Wildlife appreciates your continued assistance 
to encourage the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to complete the 
delisting of the gray wolf and remove it from Federal protection under 
the Endangered Species List.''
  It continues: ``In 2008, the first wolf pack was documented in 
Washington State. Today, we have 22 known packs. During this time, the 
State's wolf population has increased by an average of more than 30 
percent per year. . . . As demonstrated with the current rate of 
recovery, the Department is well suited to facilitate the recovery and 
management of wolves across the State. . . . Under the current Federal 
designation and management, we cannot fully implement our plan in the 
western two-thirds of the State. To ensure ongoing success in wolf 
recovery, the Federal listing needs to keep pace with the on-the-ground 
recovery status and allow the State to fully implement its management 
plan. Therefore, I support your efforts to advance the delisting of 
wolves and return management to the State.''
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the two letters I referenced.

                              Department of Fish and Wildlife,

                                      Olympia, WA, April 27, 2015.
     Hon. Dan Newhouse,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Newhouse: The Washington Department of 
     Fish and Wildlife (Department) would appreciate your 
     assistance to encourage the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
     (USFWS) to complete the delisting of the gray wolf (Canis 
     lupus) and remove it from federal protections under the 
     Endangered Species Act (ESA). As you may know, gray wolves in 
     the western two-thirds of Washington State remain federally 
     classified as ``endangered'' and are under federal 
     management.
       The original delisting proposal was published on June 13, 
     2013, and then on March 27, 2014, the USFWS closed the second 
     round of public comments. The Department submitted letters of 
     support for delisting in December 2013 and March 2014. While 
     we have been working closely with the USFWS at the state, 
     regional and headquarter levels to ensure we are meeting our 
     shared conservation and recovery objectives, we are concerned 
     with the lack of progress on federal delisting.
       Washington has a strong Wolf Conservation and Management 
     Plan that has received broad support, and we are committed to 
     maintaining a viable wolf population in Washington. The 
     Department is well positioned to facilitate the recovery and 
     management of wolves across the state.
       Protection under Washington State Laws--The Department has 
     state-specific authority (RCW 77.12.020 and 77.15.120) to 
     designate and protect species at risk of extinction and has

[[Page H9516]]

     classified wolves as endangered since 1980, an action akin to 
     federal protection granted under ESA). Wolves will remain 
     protected until their population reaches the levels 
     established in the state recovery plan.
       The Department is equipped for wolf conservation and 
     management--In 2013, the Washington State Legislature acted 
     to provide $1.6 million per biennium for wolf management from 
     a permanent increase in the cost of personalized license 
     plates. Since then, the Department has hired two permanent 
     wolf biologists and has deployed 11 conflict specialists 
     across the state to address wildlife conflict issues.
       Wolves are recovering in Washington State--In 2008, the 
     first wolf pack was documented in Washington State. Today we 
     have 16 known packs. During this time our wolf population has 
     increased by an average of more than 30 percent per year. At 
     current rates, we expect to meet our recovery objects within 
     six years. We want to have consistent management of wolves 
     across the state of Washington. For us, successful wolf 
     recovery means that we have a sustainable wolf population 
     distributed throughout the state, the public accepts the 
     presence of wolves on the landscape, and Washington citizens 
     are confident in the Department's wolf management.
       The Washington wolf management plan establishes strong 
     expectations that livestock operators will use preventive 
     strategies to avoid wolf-livestock conflict. But sometimes we 
     may need to remove wolves that become habituated to livestock 
     as a food source. Under the current federal designation and 
     management, we cannot implement our plan in the western two-
     thirds of the state. Therefore, I ask you for any help you 
     can provide to advance the federal proposal to delist wolves.
       Thank you for considering this request. The Department is 
     available to assist you with any information you may need.
           Sincerely,
                                            James Unsworth, Ph.D.,
     Director.
                                  ____



                              Department of Fish and Wildlife,

                                        Olympia, WA, May 15, 2018.
     Hon. Dan Newhouse,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Newhouse: The Washington Department of 
     Fish and Wildlife (Department) appreciates your continued 
     assistance to encourage the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
     (USFWS) to complete the delisting of the gray wolf (Canis 
     lupus) and remove it from federal protection under the 
     Endangered Species Act (ESA). As you may know, gray wolves in 
     the western two-thirds of Washington State are currently 
     classified as ``endangered'' and are under federal 
     management.
       The USFWS published the original delisting proposal on June 
     13, 2013, and then on March 27, 2014, the USFWS closed the 
     second round of public comments. The Department submitted 
     letters of support for delisting in December 2013 and March 
     2014. To date, the USFWS has not released a decision notice 
     on the federal status of gray wolves and we remain concerned 
     with the lack of progress towards federal delisting.
       Washington has a strong Wolf Conservation and Management 
     Plan that has received broad support, and we are committed to 
     maintaining a viable wolf population in Washington. As 
     demonstrated with the current rate of recovery, the 
     Department is well suited to facilitate the recovery and 
     management of wolves across the state.
       Protection under Washington State Laws--The Department has 
     state-specific authority (RCW 77.12.020 and 77.15.120) to 
     designate and protect species at risk of extinction and has 
     classified wolves as endangered since 1980, an action akin to 
     federal protection granted under ESA. Wolves will remain 
     protected until their population reaches the levels 
     established in the state recovery plan.
       The Department is equipped for wolf conservation and 
     management--Since 2013, the Washington State Legislature has 
     provided approximately $1.5 million per biennium for wolf 
     management from a permanent increase in the cost of 
     personalized license plates. The Department uses that 
     funding, in addition with other sources, to support 23 
     positions deployed across the state that address wolf 
     conflict as well as other wildlife conflict issues.
       Wolves are recovering in Washington State--In 2008, the 
     first wolf pack was documented in Washington State. Today we 
     have 22 known packs. During this time, the state's wolf 
     population has increased by an average of more than 30 
     percent per year. We want to have consistent management of 
     wolves across the state of Washington. For us, successful 
     wolf recovery means that we have a sustainable wolf 
     population distributed throughout the state, the public 
     accepts the presence of wolves on the landscape, and 
     Washington citizens are confident in the Department's wolf 
     management.
       The Washington wolf management plan establishes strong 
     expectations that livestock operators will use preventive 
     strategies to avoid wolf-livestock conflict. But sometimes we 
     may need to remove wolves that become habituated to livestock 
     as a food source. Under the current federal designation and 
     management, we cannot fully implement our plan in the western 
     two-thirds of the state and the only means available for the 
     USFWS to address wolf-livestock conflicts in the geographic 
     area under the federal endangered designation is for the 
     USFWS to attempt to relocate livestock-killing wolves.
       To ensure ongoing success in wolf recovery, the federal 
     listing needs to keep pace with the on-the ground recovery 
     status and allow the state to fully implement its management 
     plan. Therefore, I support your efforts to advance the 
     delisting of wolves and return management to the state.
       Thank you for considering this request. The Department is 
     available to assist you with any information you may need.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Joe Stohr,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. So, Mr. Speaker, to close, I would just like to say 
that, as a farmer and a lifelong resident of central Washington State, 
I consider myself a conservationist and a steward of our rich natural 
heritage, and that includes our incredible wildlife.
  State governments are fully qualified to responsibly manage gray wolf 
populations and are better able to meet the needs of local communities, 
ranchers, livestock, wildlife populations, and ecosystems.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) for yielding 
me the customary 30 minutes.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we are here today considering our first 
rule following a long district work period. During that time, we had a 
big national debate about the direction of our country. According to 
exit polling, the top issue for voters was healthcare and, in 
particular, protecting coverage from preexisting conditions.
  But that is not what the bill before us addresses. Nor does it 
involve immigration, another top issue for voters, or strengthening the 
economy or combating gun violence. All of these are what our 
constituents just said was important to them.
  But instead of doing anything on any of that, we are here today 
considering a bill to undermine endangered species protections. Are you 
kidding me?
  And get this: Also, last night in the Rules Committee, the majority 
placed a provision in the rule that would remove the privileged status 
of Representative Khanna's War Powers Resolution, H. Con. Res. 138. 
This resolution states that Congress never authorized the United 
States' support of Saudi-led forces in Yemen and would direct the 
President of the United States to end his support.
  This measure is a privileged resolution under the terms of the War 
Powers Resolution, which provides that resolutions concerning the 
involvement of the U.S. military in armed conflict have a direct path 
to the floor to be debated and to be voted on.
  The rules provide this privileged status because such questions are 
among the most important that the people's House can debate. Such 
privileged resolutions or a negotiated substitute have come before the 
House under Republican and Democratic majorities.
  Yet, with this rule before us today, Republicans have taken the 
unprecedented step of striking this privilege, preventing us from doing 
our constitutional duty and foreclosing the only available mechanism to 
compel an up or down vote in Congress regarding our military 
involvement in the Yemen war.
  As of this morning, this bill, introduced by Congressman Khanna, has 
over 80 bipartisan cosponsors, including Democratic Whip Hoyer and 
Ranking Members Smith, Lowey, Engel, and myself.
  The U.S.-Saudi military campaign in Yemen has triggered the world's 
worst humanitarian crisis, prompting the late Saudi dissident Jamal 
Khashoggi to call for an end to the war. Published just weeks before 
his murder, Khashoggi's Washington Post column was headlined, ``Saudi 
Arabia's crown prince must restore dignity to his country by ending 
Yemen's cruel war.''
  It is unconscionable for Republican leadership to take this 
unprecedented action to strip Members of their right to bring such 
measures to the floor for debate.
  Mr. Speaker, what is the majority afraid of? We should be debating 
this.

[[Page H9517]]

Instead, the Republican majority continues to turn a deaf ear to this 
and many other issues.
  We are 11 days away from our government running out of funding. Five 
appropriations bills have been signed into law so far. They have funded 
75 percent of the government, but there is more work that we need to 
do.
  We should be continuing that momentum and getting the job done, 
keeping the lights on, not wasting time considering a bill to attack an 
endangered species.
  Or how about reauthorizing the National Flood Insurance Program that 
expires at the end of this month or putting a comprehensive 
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act on the House floor 
that is set to expire December 7, not to mention the need to 
reauthorize the farm bill that expired back on October 1.

                              {time}  1600

  Our country's farmers are depending upon this Congress to put into 
place a new bill that provides them with certainty, especially in light 
of the trade war that President Trump has started; yet the majority 
has, instead, prioritized a bill that completely ignores all the 
important issues that we face in this country.
  The American people have clearly had enough. They demanded a new 
direction and a new Congress that actually addresses what they care 
most about, and they demanded an end to this closed process. This rule 
marks the 102nd closed rule of this Congress. Now, let me repeat that: 
the 102nd closed rule. Mr. Speaker, that is a staggering number.
  Now, I am not suggesting that every rule needs to be an open one or 
that there is never a time for a closed rule, but there is never a time 
for more than 100 closed rules. There is no justification for that at 
all.
  Since the election, I heard my friends on the other side of the aisle 
express a hope that the next Congress is a more accommodating one. That 
is ironic since the Republicans have voted in lockstep for one closed 
rule after another, after another, after another.
  But to them, I ask: Why wait? A Democratic majority will certainly be 
better than the current one. But Republicans don't have to wait until 
January. They could demand a more open process here today by voting 
against this closed rule.
  This is your chance to prove that your newfound calls for openness 
are above more than politics. Vote against this record-breaking closed 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just a couple of points in response to my good friend 
from the State of Massachusetts. Certainly, there are a lot of 
important issues in front of us and things that we should and will be 
addressing. But I have to say, as a representative of central 
Washington who represents communities that deal with wolf populations 
on a daily basis, I don't think it is fair or proper, even, for my good 
friend to minimize or diminish the importance of the issue that we have 
in front of us today. So with all due respect, the importance of 
managing wolves in our country deserves just as much attention as many 
of the other issues that my good friend from Massachusetts referenced.
  Also, as relates to the Khanna resolution, just as you said, in just 
a few short weeks, your party will assume the majority. You will have 
the opportunity to hold the hearings and the markups and to take the 
votes of the all-important regular order that you continually talk 
about. I am looking forward to that. But forcing this type of vote on 
Members in the remainder of this Congress, in my view, is unnecessary 
at this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Walden), my good friend, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Washington State 
for bringing this rule to the floor and addressing this issue. It is 
literally one of great importance in my district and in the West.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the underlying bill, the 
Manage our Wolves Act, because we need to clarify the management of 
wolves in Oregon and put us on a path to follow the locally State-
written Oregon wolf plan.
  For years, Mr. Speaker, ranchers across my district have watched as 
wolf packs have grown. They harass cattle herds and they kill livestock 
and they are brutal.
  When you lose a heifer, you don't just lose one cow. You have lost 10 
years' worth of calves that will never be born and that will never be 
able to be sold. Those that aren't killed are harassed, often losing 
weight and value. They are chased all over by the wolf packs.
  The cattle and sheep these ranchers raise are their livelihoods. 
Every day--sun, rain, or snow--they raise and care for these animals.
  When a first-time mom is struggling to feed a new calf, the rancher 
nurtures them, sometimes even literally bringing them into their own 
home next to the wood stove to warm them up and keep the calf alive in 
the winter. That care makes it all the harder to come upon a calf that 
has been torn apart by wolves.
  If you are of young age, or whatever, I would just give you a fair 
warning that this is a graphic picture of what happens when a wolf gets 
ahold of a calf.
  A rancher wrote me earlier this year that three of her calves were 
attacked, and she described them as ``wild-eyed with terror after being 
mutilated by wolves . . .''--just like this one you see here from a 
calf that was killed by wolves in Wallowa County, ripped apart.
  This rancher went on to write, ``the rush of emotions one feels when 
you see an animal you have nurtured crying for help, panic in their 
eyes, searching for escape,'' she said no one wants to see that and 
described it as watching your worst horror movie in slow motion.
  Now, the ranchers have done a lot in this effort. They have watched 
as attacks continue, though, despite their efforts to implement largely 
ineffective, nonlethal control techniques they were asked to do. 
Meanwhile, the issue at the heart of this matter is that there are 
arbitrary lines on a map that created a jurisdictional mess in my State 
of Oregon where wolves in eastern Oregon are managed by the State, and 
right across this highway they are managed by the Federal Government.
  Today's legislation that we will consider fixes that by ensuring that 
all wolves in Oregon are removed from the Federal endangered species 
list. This would then return the management to the State and allow 
wolves, like other wildlife, to be managed under collaboratively 
developed Oregon law.
  There are still challenges with State management; there is no doubt 
about that. We have seen times when the Oregon Fish and Wildlife 
Service has been slow to take action and implement the hard-fought 
agreements in the wolf plan to help prevent predation and control the 
wolf packs.
  The State needs to step up and uphold thes agreements, but those are 
issues we can work out as Oregonians. The last thing we need, however, 
is the Federal Government trying to micromanage wolves from thousands 
of miles away.

  This legislation that, hopefully, we are able to bring up because of 
this rule will get the Federal Government out of the way, will simplify 
the jurisdiction, and will place all wolves in Oregon under the State 
management plan.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington State, my good friend, Mr. 
Newhouse, seemed to imply that it would be an inconvenience for us to 
have the House consider a measure on Yemen, and I am a little bit 
puzzled by that. The reason why Representative Khanna took the step is 
because, for months, while this terrible carnage has unfolded in Yemen, 
this House has done nothing.
  We just learned that the Saudi Government was directly involved in 
the killing of a Washington Post journalist and, again, nothing--
nothing at all. The Republicans took the unprecedented step of 
basically derailing this privileged resolution. It is unprecedented.
  Over 100,000 Yemeni children have already perished because of war-
triggered

[[Page H9518]]

hunger and disease over the past 2 years. Why is the Republican 
leadership stripping us of the right to debate?
  According to the U.N., 14 million people in Yemen--half the 
population--face an imminent and catastrophic famine not seen in 100 
years if this war is not ended.
  Why is the Republican leadership stripping our right to debate? I 
don't understand what they are afraid of. It is not like they have a 
lot to do. We are going to be talking about gray wolves today, and we 
are not voting on this until Friday. They have nothing going on. 
Certainly, we should have time to debate this important humanitarian 
issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Pocan).
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member McGovern and 
Representative Khanna for all they have done to help lead the efforts 
to end the United States' unauthorized war in Yemen.
  Congress' sole responsibility over offensive use of force is outlined 
in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: ``Congress shall have 
power to . . . declare war.'' James Madison argued that this power ``is 
fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.'' Yet, today, House 
Republicans are attempting to avoid their responsibilities by sneaking 
unrelated language into this rule which will prohibit consideration of 
a War Powers Resolution pertaining to the U.S.-Saudi war in Yemen.
  To be clear, they took a bill about removing gray wolves from the 
endangered species list in North America and included a provision 
prohibiting even just the discussion of war in Yemen.
  Now, there are rare Arabian wolves native to Yemen--about 1,000 to 
2,000--roaming in the Middle East. Canis lupus arabs is a subspecies of 
gray wolf. But this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. This is the 
deprivileging of H. Con. Res. 138, which is just another abdication of 
our responsibilities as Members of Congress.
  We are literally elected to make decisions about war and peace, and 
we are failing to do the most basic function of our job: to uphold the 
Constitution. We should at least have the courage to make the decisions 
about war and about conflicts in which we are entangling our 
constituents who serve in the military.
  Today, as Mr. McGovern said, Yemen is the worst humanitarian crisis 
on the planet, with the U.N. saying that 14 million people--half the 
population of Yemen--are either experiencing full-blown famine at the 
risk of death by starvation as soon as the end of the year.
  Since 2015, U.S. forces have been backing the Saudi war by assisting 
in targeting, logistical support, and refueling deadly Saudi airstrikes 
in a war that has nothing to do with fighting al-Qaida.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, by reasserting Congress' authority over war, 
we can end active U.S. participation in a Saudi-led conflict in which 
the Saudis are imposing a blockade to literally starve millions of 
Yemenis to death. If the U.S. ends its involvement, Saudi leader 
Mohammed bin Salman will be forced to the negotiating table to end his 
brutal bombing campaign and blockade on food.
  Even the Senate isn't afraid to take this up. In March, under Leader 
Mitch McConnell, the Senate debated and voted on the unconstitutional 
war in Yemen: 44 Senators voted for the measure. A bipartisan group led 
that.
  Unfortunately, rather than upholding our founding values, the 
leadership in this House has chosen to quietly insert a measure to 
block the House from debating the war.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this cynical tactic. 
Whether you agree or not about ending the illegal U.S.-Saudi war, vote 
against this rule so you can allow us to do our jobs and vote to do 
what we swore to uphold: our sole authority to debate and vote on war.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, nobody is afraid to debate anything here on the House 
floor. The fact is, though, that the U.S. is no longer providing the 
very support that the Khanna resolution seeks to cut off, making this 
action unnecessary.
  It is based on a factually faulty premise: We are not involved in 
hostilities in Yemen, so the War Powers Act should not apply. As a 
result, even if this resolution passed both Chambers, DOD would not 
need to alter any of its activities.
  Like I said, again, in a few short weeks, the Democrats will assume 
the majority. They will be able to hold all the hearings and markups 
and votes that they want on this matter, as it should be. Forcing this 
type of vote now, in the remainder of this Congress, in my humble 
opinion, is simply unnecessary.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. 
Gianforte), my good friend.
  Mr. GIANFORTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, like many Montanans, I have a deep respect for our 
environment. I support protecting our rich and diverse wildlife and 
believe we can support multiple uses of land while conserving species. 
Unfortunately, we have seen environmental groups use misinformation and 
litigation to keep species listed that have already recovered.
  In 2013, the Obama administration's Fish and Wildlife Service 
evaluated the gray wolf populations across the United States. It found 
that the species no longer warranted protection under the Endangered 
Species Act.
  Rather than celebrating the recovery, serial litigants and extremists 
filed lawsuits to stop the process. Montana has been fortunate. Through 
Federal legislation, the wolf has been delisted in Montana since 2011. 
Even without ESA protection, the species has continued to recover to a 
point nearing overpopulation.
  While the focus of this legislation is wolves, a similar issue is 
playing out in Montana over the grizzly bear in the greater Yellowstone 
ecosystem. Just last year, the grizzly bear was delisted there. I 
celebrate the recovery of the species, but it had recovered more than a 
decade ago, according to scientists who have spent their lives studying 
the grizzly.

                              {time}  1615

  Using sound science and reliable data, they found the ecosystem 
reached maximum carrying capacity of the grizzly bear 16 years ago, but 
serial litigants have repeatedly thwarted the delisting efforts of the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
  The unnecessary delay in delisting species has created unnecessary 
stress on the bears and impacted our communities. The overpopulation of 
the grizzly pushes them into our communities and increases the 
opportunities for attacks.
  We must address the flaws in the Endangered Species Act to ensure 
species are delisted when they have recovered, and to prevent the law 
from being used as a bludgeoning tool for special interest groups to 
block critical projects.
  Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 6784 and the rule that we are 
considering, the Manage Our Wolves Act, and I urge passage of the bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, when my Republican friends want to dedicate the next 3 
days to talking about gray wolves, people are being murdered every 
single hour in Yemen. The Saudi-led effort even bombed a school bus 
filled with innocent children. So it seems to me that there could be no 
more important time for debate in the House on ending U.S. military 
support for this war.
  I just don't know what the Republican majority is afraid of. 
Privileged resolutions--I want my colleagues to understand this--by 
Members of this House, have always been allowed to be debated on this 
House floor, under Republican and Democrat majorities alike until now; 
until today. I don't know what the Republican majority is afraid of.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, in this rule, the wolves bare their fangs--
not American wolves, but Saudis, who are willing to sever heads, 
dismember opponents, and bomb the innocent.
  This rule is truly a wolf in wolf's clothing. By blocking a vote on 
whether America should continue to aid and abet Saudi atrocities, this 
Congress would remain an obedient lapdog to President Trump's impulses, 
and not the watchdog for American values.

[[Page H9519]]

  The Saudi ruthless war in Yemen has created what so many have 
described as the largest humanitarian disaster on our planet today, and 
yet it continues. American support for Saudi atrocities is truly a 
stain on our Nation with which so many of our country members are not 
familiar.
  But without American spare parts, American targeting, American 
weapons and bombs, and until recently, American refueling, this killing 
could not occur. My colleague mentioned the school bus. Forty children 
were murdered in August, and sprawled across the bomb that was next to 
their bus were words that meant: ``Made in America.'' That is the 
message that we are sending there. That is where American tax dollars 
are going.
  The Trump administration last week belatedly said it would stop 
refueling. That is insufficient. If we are to stop Saudi killing, we 
must stop all of the assistance that they are receiving.
  Now, of course, there has been attention on Saudi murders of late in 
a different area: about one person, about the dismemberment of a legal 
American resident who was a leading journalist in this city.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, after taking the standing Trump approach of 
denying everything--saying he accepted the lies and the denials of the 
Saudis--Mr. Trump dodged again by saying, ``I am going to leave . . . 
it up to Congress.'' And so what is this Congress doing about the 
Khashoggi atrocity? Absolutely nothing. That is what should have been 
in this rule, doing something about the sanctions and the disclosure.
  Forty of us asked this past month for the administration to brief us 
on what they knew before Mr. Khashoggi was murdered, and whether they 
warned him about that, and we have had a deafening silence in response 
to our request on that, and on cutting off assistance to Yemen.
  Even an audio of the gruesome murder of Mr. Khashoggi--we don't know 
whether it included the sound of the bone saw that the Saudis 
apparently used to dismember him--but even a murder will not cause some 
in this leadership to stand up to President Trump and this atrocious 
regime.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to a Congress with the 
courage to end support for these crimes, to cease American sales to the 
Saudis, and to do something to hold Mr. Khashoggi's killers 
accountable.
  But to say, wait until a much-improved new Congress comes into 
session to do anything about it means that tonight and every day going 
forward to January 3, more children will be starved; will be victims of 
cholera; and will be victims of bombings and blockades. When this 
Congress has the power to do something about it now, we ought to act 
today by rejecting this rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gosar), chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, the 
organization that stands for finding solutions to the challenges that 
we face, not only in the Western United States, but all over the 
country to help steer debate back to the issue on the agenda that we 
are considering today.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge support of H.R. 6784. Our 
Federal wolf policy has gone rabid. From a policy standpoint, we are 
foaming at the mouth. As chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, 
I have been trying for years now to return some sanity to the way the 
Fish and Wildlife Service classifies and manages our wolf populations 
on Federal lands and otherwise.
  Make no mistake, everyone who votes for Mr. Duffy's bill are big 
supporters of making sure wolf populations are robust, sustainable, and 
healthy for the next century and more. This bill is about fixing a 
Federal failure. Wolf populations across the country have made 
impressive gains and recovered quite nicely despite Federal involvement 
rather than because of it.
  I have seen this firsthand, whether it comes to specific habitat 
listing decisions, or the rate at which the government adapts and 
responds to new situations on the ground. The Federal Government has 
been sluggish and out of touch when it comes to managing and recovering 
wolf populations. But the wolf has, nevertheless, persevered. It is now 
considered recovered by all relevant measures and metrics evaluating 
its status.
  As a consequence, this bill makes necessary adjustments. It removes 
the species from the endangered list, as required by the statute for 
any recovered species, but empowers States to manage their unique 
habitats and populations in accordance with their storehouse of 
expertise and local knowledge.
  State management plans developed for wolf populations are the 
antidote to repeat Federal blunders, both for this species and quite a 
few others. But for now, we are talking about the wolf and the fact 
that this bill will put States at ease.
  We need to stop jerking their chain and hand them the reins. If we 
do, the wolf will have the best chance of continuing to make steady 
gains range-wide.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of H.R. 6784.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
rule which will pave the way for a vote on a bill that will summarily 
delist the gray wolf from protections under the Endangered Species Act 
by congressional fiat, in direct contradiction to our Nation's animal 
protection policies that have done so much to preserve the diversity of 
animal existence over the last 45 years.
  In addition, in keeping with the sad track record of this Republican-
controlled Congress, this is yet another closed rule, number 102 over 
the last 2 years, to be exact, that will prohibit consideration of any 
amendments.
  Most egregious of all, however, this rule includes a totally non-
germane provision that will deny debate of a separate resolution that 
will end U.S. participation in the Saudi-led coalition's intervention 
in Yemen's civil war.
  This separate resolution, the Khanna resolution, which I am an 
original cosponsor of, will be effectively blocked from congressional 
consideration and debate by passage of this rule, despite the 
humanitarian crisis and indiscriminate coalition air strikes, which 
American forces have enabled with refueling, and with logistical and 
technical support over the last 3 years.
  This bipartisan resolution deserves debate and as a coequal branch of 
government, Congress should not be shirking its duty once again by 
allowing U.S. military force to be used at the whim of the executive 
branch.
  Sadly, this rule is another example of the complete abdication by the 
115th Congress of its duty to act as a check on a coequal branch of 
government. This rule is another surrender by a weak-kneed majority on 
its way out the door to the executive branch.
  To quote ``The Hollow Men'' by T.S. Eliot, this Republican 115th 
Congress is ending ``. . . not with a bang but a whimper.''
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), a member of the House 
Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Newhouse, for his 
leadership on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill that includes 
consideration of the Manage Our Wolves Act introduced by my colleague, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
  The legislation would remove gray wolves from the Federal endangered 
species list and allow States like California to more effectively 
manage local populations. As the number of gray wolves continues to 
explode in population to nearly 6,000 in the lower 48 States, yet, the 
species continues to be classified as endangered for nearly 40 years 
now.
  It really makes no sense because the numbers, they speak for 
themselves.

[[Page H9520]]

Even in my district in northern California, gray wolves have reemerged 
in 2015 after having been listed as extinct since 1924. Not 
surprisingly, the reemergence of the gray wolf has caused a number of 
problems for ranchers, their livestock, as well as citizens in their 
homes with their pets, and a decimation of the wildlife population.
  Cattlemen, farmers, and local communities have continued to advocate 
for protections against wolves, to no avail. There had been efforts in 
recent years to delay or outright ban all nighttime hunting and 
trapping in California of other predators like coyotes, et cetera. 
Adoption of such a ban would have disastrous, unintended consequences 
for rural communities across my district and, indeed, across the West.
  Any attempt to curtail or outright ban people in local communities 
from protecting themselves or their own private property from these 
predators, should be opposed. That is why I wrote a letter to the Fish 
and Wildlife director earlier this year urging the Service to delist 
the gray wolf range-wide based on overwhelming evidence supporting 
delisting, based on the Fish and Wildlife Service's own 5-year 
recommendation for delisting.
  Management of gray wolf populations will continue to be extremely 
limited unless the species is removed from the Endangered Species Act. 
The fact remains, States are better equipped to responsibly manage the 
local wolf populations to meet the needs of local communities, 
ranchers, and livestock populations, as well as decimated wildlife 
populations.
  We have seen gray wolf management successes in States like Montana, 
Wyoming, Michigan, and Wisconsin. It is past time that we are able to 
add States like California and others to this list as well. We need 
swift passage of this bill, because the endangerment and the damage 
being done to local ranchers with their livestock; the endangerment to 
communities, people in their homes out for a walk, is unnecessary and 
it is not right.
  We need these tools for local control so we don't have to 
unnecessarily endanger and harass rural Americans with regulations that 
are poorly thought out and, indeed, ignoring the Fish and Wildlife 
Service's own recommendation to delist this species.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me begin by reminding my colleagues what the Republicans are 
proposing here, it is that the next 3 days be dedicated to the gray 
wolf. We are not debating healthcare, we are not debating the economy, 
or jobs, or keeping the government running, but it is to this.
  They bring it to us under a rule that is completely closed, so there 
are no amendments to be made in order, and the rule is even worse 
because it basically undercuts the privilege resolution introduced by 
Mr. Khanna so we could debate this horrific war going on in Yemen.

                              {time}  1630

  It takes my breath away at the lengths that this majority goes 
through to basically deny Members of Congress the right to be able to 
talk about important issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Khanna), who is the author of the privileged resolution on Yemen.
  Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman McGovern for his moral 
leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule that will deny 
Members of Congress an up-or-down vote about whether the United States 
should be complicit in the war in Yemen.
  Let's be very clear. This is unprecedented in American history. Never 
has the Speaker of the House and the majority denied a Member of 
Congress a vote on matters of war and peace. This is basically 
rendering ineffectual the War Powers Act.
  The War Powers Act was passed in a bipartisan fashion after Vietnam 
because our Nation said never again are we going to make the mistake of 
Vietnam. We are going to make sure that, if a Member of Congress calls 
for a vote, Members of Congress have the Article I, Section 8 
responsibility to vote on matters of war and peace. What the majority 
is saying is that if the President of the United States and the Speaker 
believe we should be in war, then we should be in war, and it doesn't 
matter what Members of Congress think.
  That is what they are doing with this rule.
  Now, they are arguing that we are not complicit in the hostilities of 
Yemen to invoke the War Powers Act. But you can read every article 
written on this in the international press or the national press, and 
it starts with a simple line: the U.S.-backed Saudi coalition efforts 
in bombing.
  Of course we are complicit. Do you think people in Yemen don't think 
we are complicit? Do you think people in the Middle East or our allies 
don't think we are complicit?
  With due respect, Congressman Newhouse says: Well, why not wait? Why 
not wait a few weeks until we are in the majority?
  Mr. Speaker, special envoy Griffith in every report has said that 
500,000 children will die in a matter of months. They don't have aid. 
They don't have nutrition.
  Let's be very clear on what we are doing. While we are bombing the 
ports of Hodaida, we are not allowing food and aid to get to those 
kids.
  When history is written, they are not going to say that Jim McGovern 
did this or Ro Khanna did this or Newhouse did this. They are going to 
say: How did the Congress not allow a vote while hundreds of thousands 
of kids were not allowed food and medicine?
  That is not the America that I believe in. It is not the America that 
so many Republican colleagues believe in. There is a reason that our 
Founders gave Congress the power over war and peace, because we have to 
go and answer to our constituents.
  I will tell you something. There is not a single American who 
wouldn't want the violence to end and allow food and medicine to get to 
those kids who are going to face death if we do nothing.
  I plead with my Republican colleagues: Please vote ``no'' on this 
resolution. Let's have a debate. Let's have a debate about the 
starvation and the killing going on there and do the right thing for 
our Constitution and the world.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We know what is going on in Yemen, so none of us can escape the 
responsibility we have to either endorse or ignore the suffering that 
is occurring there. Thousands of victims in Yemen--hundreds of 
thousands--are dying of starvation.
  It is happening, in some cases, quickly. People living in their homes 
under a bomb die instantly. In other cases, the suffering is 
prolonged--badly injured and no medical help to ease the suffering, let 
alone save the life. But in the case of most, it is prolonged through 
starvation.
  Children do not have access to their mother's milk, do not have 
access to the aid that is in the port but is getting bombed and can't 
be delivered. That is happening every single day.
  The U.N. report said that, of the 28 million people in Yemen, about 
20 million are in danger of humanitarian disaster. That is happening. 
There is no dispute that it is happening.
  Here is the question: Right now, that is being done with the 
authority of the executive branch of the United States Government. It 
means that that suffering that is avoidable and hardly inevitable is 
being done in your name and in mine.
  Mr. Khanna has brought forth a resolution that allows us to have a 
debate on this floor as to whether we will condone the continuation of 
that policy of inflicting the loss of innocent life: women, children, 
and citizens of Yemen. This rule prohibits us from accepting 
responsibility as to whether we will condone or condemn or oppose that 
policy.
  We have no justification for failing to do our job. Let us debate.
  This policy of Saudi Arabia of inflicting massive civilian casualty 
and suffering is for what? What national interest of this country is at 
stake by allowing that to continue?

[[Page H9521]]

  Some, including me, may say that this threatens our national interest 
because our national interest is to defend innocent life; it is not to 
kill innocent life. It is to stand with allies who are going to be 
honest and transparent with us as well as their own citizens.
  This blank check that our administration has given to Saudi Arabia 
for massive killing that is occurring in Yemen or individual 
assassination that is occurring in Turkey is wrong.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Vermont an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, the question for us is: Will we accept the 
minimal responsibility that we have in our job to have a debate and say 
no more, no more will this be done in our name?
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, undermining endangered species protections isn't a 
national emergency. We shouldn't be prioritizing it today.
  Not only is this rule a closed one, as you have heard from our side 
over and over and over again, Republicans took the unprecedented step 
of removing the privileged status of a resolution that would have given 
us the chance to debate the United States' support of the war in Yemen. 
We should be voting on this.
  People are dying every minute in Yemen. Our silence and our inaction 
mean that we are complicit.
  I have always believed that if the United States stands for anything, 
then we need to stand out loud and foursquare for human rights. There 
was a time when the issue of human rights was a bipartisan concern. But 
it is clear that this administration doesn't give a damn about human 
rights. But that doesn't mean that this institution should follow suit. 
Human rights ought to be the centerpiece of our foreign policy.
  There are innocent people being killed every single day. Children 
were riding to school in buses where the buses have been bombed, where 
these children have died, have been murdered, and all my Republican 
friends can say is: Oh, you can take care of that after January when 
you are in charge. We are just going to spend the next 3 days dedicated 
to the issue of gray wolves.
  Really?
  There is so much real work in front of us, including our most basic 
responsibility of funding this government and reauthorizing programs 
like the National Flood Insurance Program, the Violence Against Women 
Act, and the farm bill. I could go on and on and on. Education costs 
are skyrocketing. Americans are afraid coverage for their preexisting 
conditions will be ripped away by this administration and its allies in 
Congress because you have tried to do it dozens and dozens and dozens 
of times. How about doing something about that?
  It was interesting, during the campaign, my Republican colleagues 
were rushing to every microphone they could find to say that they 
somehow supported covering preexisting conditions. Let me remind 
everybody, and especially my Republican colleagues, that that was a 
Democratic idea that you opposed.
  This was the worst election for Republican Presidents since 
Watergate. Maybe that is why Republicans are trying to rewrite history.
  But here is another politically popular idea Republicans should 
follow: bringing an end to the most closed Congress in history. Let's 
let some sunlight in. Don't wait until January. Start today by voting 
against this closed rule and demand action on things that our 
constituents actually care about.
  Just one final note, again, on this unprecedented move of basically 
denying us the right to debate this war in Yemen: I agree with what Mr. 
Khanna said. History is going to look back on our inaction not only on 
the war in Yemen, but on our inaction dealing with the brutality of the 
Saudi regime.
  I would have thought that when we came back that one of the first 
items up on the agenda would be holding the Saudi Government 
accountable. Instead, we got nothing. Not only we get nothing, you take 
the unprecedented step of denying a Member of this House the right that 
he has under the privileges of this House to debate this issue of war.
  This is so wrong. This is damaging to the institution, and it shows a 
callous disregard for what is happening in Yemen.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, do the 
right thing and vote against this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing for the consideration of H.R. 6784, the 
Manage our Wolves Act, wolves were once hunted to near extinction in 
the lower 48 States. The gray wolf was listed by the Federal Government 
as an endangered species in 1974. Today, though, gray wolves are 
thriving both in my State of Washington, as well as throughout the 
United States, with more than 5,000 wolves now living in the contiguous 
United States.
  According to Washington State's Department of Fish and Wildlife, the 
State's wolf population has grown over the past 9 straight years to 22 
packs that contain at least 120 wolves.

  Mr. Speaker, the gray wolf reaching recovered status truly is an 
Endangered Species Act success story, and we should celebrate.
  Mr. Speaker, permanently listing species under the Federal Endangered 
Species Act is not how the process was ever intended to work. The 
process should rely on the best available science. It is a sign of 
progress that the species has recovered from the brink of extinction 
and no longer merits protection under the Federal Endangered Species 
Act. That is the key point here. While we seek to delist the gray wolf 
from the Federal ESA, we are empowering each State to manage their 
respective populations.
  Washington State has a strong wolf conservation and management plan 
that has received broad support, and the State Department of Fish and 
Wildlife is committed to maintaining a viable wolf population in the 
State of Washington. Wolves remain protected in the State recovery 
plan, but so long as an arbitrary Federal line divides our State and, 
as you heard, the State of Oregon, listing the wolf on one side and not 
on the other, our State managers are prevented from effectively 
managing the population within our States. As I mentioned, wolves do 
not know borders.
  Mr. Speaker, States are equipped to be more responsive and 
accountable to the needs of local communities than Federal agencies 
are, and they deserve the flexibility to manage the growing gray wolf 
populations. We should celebrate the return of the iconic species like 
the gray wolf. But meanwhile, States must be empowered to manage 
populations to ensure the healthiest balance between humans, wildlife, 
and the ecosystem.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and its 
underlying legislation, again, H.R. 6784, the Manage our Wolves Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 1142 will be followed by a 
5-minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 6666, if 
ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 201, 
nays 187, not voting 42, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 418]

                               YEAS--201

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Bacon
     Balderson
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Bergman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks (AL)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cloud
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook

[[Page H9522]]


     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Eshoo
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hern
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Joyce (OH)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McSally
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Ratcliffe
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     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
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--187

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Biggs
     Bishop (GA)
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brat
     Brown (MD)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gohmert
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Labrador
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norman
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--42

     Babin
     Barton
     Beyer
     Black
     Brooks (IN)
     Brownley (CA)
     Collins (GA)
     Comstock
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Esty (CT)
     Fitzpatrick
     Garrett
     Gomez
     Goodlatte
     Harris
     Hastings
     Hultgren
     Jenkins (KS)
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Larson (CT)
     Lynch
     McMorris Rodgers
     Messer
     Noem
     Norcross
     Panetta
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Polis
     Reed
     Ross
     Schrader
     Shuster
     Visclosky
     Walters, Mimi
     Wilson (FL)
     Woodall
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1707

  Messrs. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania, KRISHNAMOORTHI, LOEBSACK, 
MEADOWS, Ms. ADAMS, Messrs. BUTTERFIELD and GOHMERT changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. BROOKS of Alabama changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

  Stated for:
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the Capitol when the 
first vote series was called on November 14, 2018.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 418.
  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 418.
  Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and 
could not make votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on 
rollcall No. 418.
  Stated against:
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 418.
  Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would 
have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 418.

                          ____________________