[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.
____________________