[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 16, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H618-H626]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 268, SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS 
 ACT, 2019, AND WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH 
   RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE 
                           COMMITTEE ON RULES

  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 43 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 43

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 268) making supplemental appropriations for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their respective designees. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 116-2, 
     modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be 
     considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of 
     the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the 
     original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the 
     five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are 
     waived. Clause 2(e) of rule XXI shall not apply during 
     consideration of the bill. No further amendment to the bill, 
     as amended, shall be in order except those printed in part B 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such further 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such further 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill, as amended, to the House with such further 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and 
     any further amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     with respect to any resolution reported through the 
     legislative day of January 23, 2019, relating to a measure 
     making or continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2019.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), 
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. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 43, providing for consideration of 
H.R. 268, making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2019, and for other purposes.
  The rule provides for consideration of the legislation under a 
structured rule. The rule makes in order 15 amendments from Members on 
both sides of the aisle. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee. The rule also waives the requirement for two-
thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the 
same day it is presented to the House with respect to any resolution 
reported through the legislative day of January 23, relating to a 
measure making or continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2019.
  Madam Speaker, I rise now in support of the rule for H.R. 268, our 
emergency disaster relief bill, to provide $12.14 billion in recovery 
and relief assistance for millions of Americans suffering from the 
damage caused by recent hurricanes, typhoons, mudslides, flooding, 
earthquakes, and wildfires.
  These national disasters follow decades of scientific warnings to 
Congress that accelerating climate change would bring us extreme 
weather events characterized by unprecedented ferocity and violence, 
and here we are in the middle of the global crisis of climate change 
dealing with profound natural catastrophes like these.
  Last year, Hurricane Michael, the most intense hurricane ever to 
strike the Florida panhandle brought winds surpassing 125 miles per 
hour and gusts of up to 200 miles per hour, killing 45 people who were 
crushed and drowned by the hurricane, and inflicting $40 billion in 
economic damages, and $5 billion in insured losses.
  In 2018, the people of California, who have lost 10 million acres of 
forest in the last decade to wildfires, experienced the deadliest and 
most destructive wildfire season in recorded history with more than 
8,500 fires burning an area of 1,893,913 acres, the largest area of 
burned acreage ever recorded in a fire season in the United States of 
America.
  An astonishing 7,100 structures burned to the ground. In July and 
August, it seemed like the entire State was ablaze with the worst 
damage taking place in northern California which was declared a 
disaster area. Millions of people in San Francisco and the bay area 
were forced to wear gas masks to go to school or to go to work.
  In November, yet another round of wildfires visited massive 
destruction of life, limb, and property on the people of California. 
One fire, the so-called Camp fire, displaced tens of thousands of 
people and killed at least 86 men, women, and children, burning many of 
them to death in their cars or as they sought refuge and tried to flee 
from their cars and run down the road.
  The fire, which lasted many days, annihilated more than 18,000 
structures and buildings and destroyed the entire town of Paradise, 
turning it into an inferno, a hell on Earth. This was in our country.
  The same kinds of astonishing events that destroyed entire 
communities in Florida and in California were experienced by people all 
over America last year: hurricane devastation in Puerto Rico, Texas, 
and the Carolinas; unprecedented flooding and drought all over America; 
and typhoons in the territories, a catalogue of climate-change 
intensified misery and suffering that the entire Congress should see as 
calling upon the decency and resources of the American people to 
address.
  The $12 billion legislation the majority brings forward today in H.R. 
268 will ensure that communities across the land can recover from these 
disasters with the resources that they need to rebuild.
  The bill helps farmers suffering from crop and livestock losses, 
coastal communities rebuilding their infrastructure and preparing to 
weather future storms; dislocated workers, veterans, students, and 
other Americans displaced and uprooted by these catastrophes.
  The bill invests in restoration of disaster-damaged forests. It sends 
aids to local communities to restore more than 250,000 acres of 
watershed. It funds restoration of rural communities. It offers $600 
million to continue disaster nutrition benefits to the hard-hit people 
of Puerto Rico, still reeling from Hurricane Maria, and it allocates 
critical funding for social services, mental health, education, 
nutrition assistance, and infrastructure resiliency in communities 
across the land.
  We will rebuild our transportation systems with this legislation. We 
will repair housing. We will repair businesses and public 
infrastructure. We will repair and reconstruct hurricane-damaged 
Veterans Administration and Department of Defense bases and facilities 
across the country.
  But the majority is not stopping there. We are not just offering aid 
to States and local communities across the land to rebuild and renew. 
We are reopening the Government of the United States so we can actually 
send this aid, so we can offer the expert

[[Page H619]]

technical assistance these communities need, and so we can use the full 
apparatus of our government, including the currently closed down 
Department of Homeland Security and the Coast Guard where our 
hardworking personnel are not being paid, to get America moving again
  The National Governors Association, a bipartisan group of Governors 
from the 50 States called for an immediate reopening of the government 
that will allow for the release of $85 billion in Federal aid and loan 
assistance that is being held up because a third of the government has 
been shut down. That is the Governors of our States, the people closest 
to surveying the damage on the ground.
  Indeed, by reopening the Government of the United States of America, 
we are not just helping to address the disasters that have befallen our 
people across the country; we are ending the manmade disaster of the 
government shutdown.
  And when I say it is manmade, I don't mean to use archaic sexist 
language, Madam Speaker. I am trying to be precise. This is the 
shutdown that one man, President Donald Trump, gave us and proudly 
claimed as his own in the December 11 White House meeting when he said, 
``I am proud to shut down the government, Chuck. I will take the 
mantle. I will be the one to shut it down,'' said the President of the 
United States. ``I'm not going to blame you for it.''
  So far this shutdown that the President is proud to have delivered to 
his people has closed nine Federal departments: Department of State, 
Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior, Department of 
Commerce, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, 
Department of the Treasury, HUD, and Department of Transportation.
  It has caused 800,000 Federal workers to be furloughed or compelled 
to work with no pay at all. It has threatened public safety in national 
parks which are overflowing with garbage and backed up waste in the 
bathrooms. It has threatened the tax refunds of millions of Americans. 
It has threatened 38 million low-income Americans who depend on SNAP 
benefits for proper nutrition for their families, and it has unleashed 
profound chaos and anxiety in the land.
  In my congressional district, tens of thousands of Federal workers 
have been denied pay; air traffic controllers, Coast Guard personnel, 
NIH researchers, scientists at NOAA. I have heard from scientists at 
the FDA who have been furloughed and prevented from working on the 
prevention and containment of E. coli, salmonella, and insect 
infestation of our food supply.
  I have spoken to an Army veteran who has spent the rest of his career 
after leaving the Army as an air traffic controller who now must raid 
his own retirement plan and his daughter's 529 college plan with a 10 
percent penalty in order to pay his mortgage.
  I have spoken to several constituents who have been forced to pay 
their mortgages with credit cards or loans from other family members, 
and I have talked to constituents who have been forced to forego 
medical treatments because they can't balance their checkbooks, when 
they are ordered to work but receive a pay stub like many have emailed 
to me, showing zero net pay, zero gross pay.
  Hundreds of thousands of people who work for private contractors and 
small businesses working with the government across America have been 
injured as well; many furloughed, laid off, or fired with no real 
promise of making their money back, unlike the Federal workers who at 
least, I hope, should be getting their money back because of 
legislation that the majority has brought forward.
  But the 172,000 Federal workers in my State are losing $778 million 
every 2 weeks, and the State has already lost more than $60 million in 
taxes.
  The economic reverberations are awful, and they are spreading.

                              {time}  1245

  Now, this shutdown is a brutal assault on the separation of powers 
and the Constitution of the United States:
  It does not form a more perfect Union. It does not establish justice. 
It shuts the Justice Department down.
  It does not ensure domestic tranquility. It defunds the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  It does not provide for the common defense, but it robs our Coast 
Guard personnel of their paychecks.
  It does not promote the general welfare, but it furloughs food 
inspectors.
  It cheats civil servants out of their salaries; it promotes tax fraud 
by locking IRS agents out of their offices; and it idles environmental 
scientists, diplomats, air traffic controllers, and TSA agents who are 
calling in sick because they can't even afford to get to work now.
  This policy is not in service of ``we, the people,'' and that is why 
every public opinion poll shows the American people overwhelmingly 
rejecting the Trump shutdown, this scandalous assault on the public 
good.
  In America, we don't hold the government or the workforce or the 
people hostage over a policy dispute. That is an absolute betrayal of 
the separation of powers and how government is supposed to work in the 
United States of America.
  Now, my good friends across the aisle should be confronting the 
shutdown with us. We are asking them to join us in getting the 
emergency aid to our people all across the land and in reopening the 
government.
  I know it wasn't their idea, Madam Speaker. I know they were backed 
into this situation by President Trump and FOX News and Ann Coulter, 
whom the President apparently saw on TV and then changed his mind and 
decided to shut the government down.
  But now, I am afraid that our friends across the aisle have become 
enablers of the President, and now they own a piece of the shutdown. 
The party of Abraham Lincoln, who saved the Union with malice for none 
and charity for all, has become the party of Donald Trump, who shut 
down the government with charity for none and malice for all.
  Let's put an end to it right now, Madam Speaker. In the age of 
climate change, we have no time left for these foolish and self-
destructive games. We must act as first responders for the American 
people.
  Our new majority in the House of Representatives is up to the task. 
We are ready to govern. We are ready to lead. Let's help our people 
recover from the natural disasters which have been exacerbated by 
climate change, and let's end the manmade disaster of the shutdown of 
our own government right now.
  Americans know the truth of this situation. Let's act together to end 
the Trump shutdown, which the American people rightfully despise and 
deplore. Let's put the government back to work for the general welfare, 
starting with the millions of Americans still buffeted by the 
terrifying weather calamities of 2018.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Raskin), my good friend, for yielding the customary 30 minutes, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my friend on his 
recent appointment to the Rules Committee, where we have already had 
the opportunity to interact with one another. And I want to again 
congratulate him for bringing his first rule to the floor as well. I 
know we are going to have a good relationship in the next couple of 
years as we work together.
  Madam Speaker, we are back here in appropriations; only this time, 
the majority has taken what was an important, likely bipartisan 
disaster relief appropriations bill and turned it into a partisan 
football.
  Last night, the Committee on Rules was scheduled to meet on a $12.1 
billion supplemental appropriations bill. At the last minute, the 
majority chose to make in order and self-execute an amendment that 
would tack on an additional measure, a continuing resolution to fund 
the government through February 8.
  I don't know if I can fully convey how disappointed I am that the 
majority is seeking to play politics with this important issue and use 
an otherwise noncontroversial disaster appropriations bill as a vehicle 
to pass a controversial spending bill that is going absolutely nowhere.
  Last year, the Nation faced a wide variety of disasters, from 
wildfires in the West to hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico and the Virgin 
Islands and the

[[Page H620]]

Southeastern United States, and the volcanoes in Hawaii.
  When disaster strikes, we have an obligation to help each other. I 
don't think there is a single Member of the House who would disagree 
with that fundamental principle.
  Before the Rules Committee acted last night, we were on our way to a 
bipartisan bill that fulfilled that principle. But today, we are 
considering a partisan bill that will not resolve the shutdown, and it 
holds up crucial aid for disaster victims.
  To that end, Madam Speaker, I have to say that the original version 
of the bill was actually very good. It took roughly what the House had 
passed at the end of the last Congress and added to it.
  In December, we passed a bill that provided $7.38 billion in disaster 
relief. The original bill up today would provide $12.1 billion in 
disaster relief, with additional money going mostly to increase 
existing accounts and to provide nutrition assistance to Puerto Rico. 
Frankly, I was prepared to be fully supportive of that measure.
  Moreover, I was especially pleased that the majority took the steps 
toward an open process. They issued a call for amendments, considered 
them, and made some very good amendments in order.
  I want to commend Chairman McGovern for taking these steps and giving 
Members on both sides of the aisle an opportunity to present the case 
for their amendments to the Rules Committee and, in many cases, to the 
full House.

  But instead of moving forward on a joint disaster relief bill, the 
majority decided at the last minute to turn this noncontroversial piece 
of legislation into a controversial one by attaching a self-executing 
manager's amendment which adds a continuing resolution to fund the 
government through February 8.
  Madam Speaker, I want to be clear. I want to end the government 
shutdown as well. I have said countless times on this floor and 
elsewhere that the primary responsibility of legislators is to fund the 
government and keep it open. Our constituents deserve no less than the 
full amount of government services we have promised them.
  At the end of December, I voted in favor of a bill that would have 
done exactly that. It would have funded the government through February 
8. It would have funded disaster relief, and it would have provided 
funding for border security. A majority of the Senate favored that 
bill, and the President had said he would sign it. Unfortunately, the 
Democratic minority in the Senate blocked consideration of the bill, a 
bill that could have stopped this shutdown before it ever happened.
  This, now, is the fourth proposal by my friends across the aisle to 
reopen the government. Tomorrow, we will be likely considering a fifth 
proposal. Unfortunately, each of these items has in common the same 
flaws.
  The Senate made it clear that it will not take up any spending bill 
that the President cannot sign, and the President has made it clear 
that he will not sign any bill that does not address border security. 
Yet my friends across the aisle continue to put forward measure after 
measure that simply do not provide funding for border security.
  Today, the majority is seeking to one-up itself. They have taken a 
disaster relief bill to provide funding for victims of hurricanes, 
wildfires, and volcanoes, and they are attaching to it the same funding 
bill the House previously passed. The House may have passed it, but the 
Senate won't, and the President won't sign it.
  Why, then, does the majority insist on using disaster victims as 
leverage to avoid addressing border security?
  Madam Speaker, I want to reopen the government. I want us to provide 
for disaster victims, and I want us to provide for border security. We 
can accomplish all three of these things. The House can do all three of 
these things. In fact, the House has done all three of these things as 
recently as December. Why the majority only wants to accomplish one of 
those and wants to do so by using disaster victims as leverage is 
beyond me.
  I know my friends think they can force the Senate and the President 
to bend to their will, but they cannot, and they will not. In divided 
government, negotiation and compromise are indispensable in governing. 
So far, my friends have engaged in neither.
  Madam Speaker, today, we should be happy to provide needed relief to 
disaster victims. Instead, we are here on the fourth proposal from the 
majority on government funding and a fourth proposal that does not 
address fundamental problems, does not negotiate with the majority, and 
does not put forward a bill that can become law.
  To quote the baseball legend and philosopher Yogi Berra, ``it's deja 
vu all over again.''
  So I would suggest my friends go to the bargaining table with the 
United States Senate and with the President of the United States and 
see if they can actually work with the other bodies and help us come to 
some resolution, the differences between the two.
  Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the 
balance of my time
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Cole), my friend, for his very thoughtful words and that kind welcome 
to the Rules Committee.
  I have heard nothing but wonderful things about how he operates on 
the Rules Committee, and we are indeed fortunate to have him serving in 
this capacity. I really do look forward to working with him in the 
months and years ahead.
  And I admit that it has been a somewhat awkward process trying to 
reopen the government of the United States. This shutdown is unique for 
at least two reasons I can think of. One is it is already the longest 
shutdown in the history of the United States; and the second is that, 
when the shutdown began last year under the 115th Congress, it was the 
only time that the Congress adjourned during a shutdown.
  So rather than stay and try to work it out, we were adjourned before 
recess, and the Congress went home, so it was left in the hands of the 
new majority and the new 116th Congress to try to get it going again, 
which is why, yes, it is the absolute first order of business for us to 
open up the Government of the United States.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Shalala), who is also a new and a distinguished member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, by providing more than $12 billion in 
disaster relief to various Federal departments and agencies, we can 
ensure that communities have the resources and funds that they need to 
rebuild. H.R. 268 confirms our commitment to communities like my 
district and my State that are often hardest hit by natural disasters.
  This rule funds crucial infrastructure projects that will better 
equip our hurricane centers in tracking, predicting, and forecasting 
large storms. It increases nutrition assistance programs, including 
$600 million for Puerto Rico. In addition, over $1 billion will be 
available to cover crop losses in many parts of the country.
  But critical to implementing this bill is an amendment to reopen the 
government. Without the government open, Federal agencies, States, and 
communities are having difficulty accessing disaster aid. Anyone who 
cares about disaster relief should be voting for this bill, which will 
end the shutdown, open the government, and help people across this 
country who have been victims of national disasters.

  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Newhouse), my good friend 
and former member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Oklahoma for 
yielding some time.
  Madam Speaker, today I regretfully rise in opposition to this rule. 
The base text of the legislation before us is vitally important. I will 
admit that. It demonstrates bipartisan--in fact, I would say, really, 
nonpartisan--efforts negotiated over months between both sides of the 
aisle to provide desperately needed resources to communities ravaged by 
hurricanes, typhoons, wildfires, and other disasters in 2018.
  But, unfortunately, Madam Speaker, as is becoming all too familiar 
under Democratic control of the people's House, Democrats are now 
pulling political stunts, jeopardizing these vital

[[Page H621]]

resources from reaching communities who need them the most.
  Last night, Democrats on the House Rules Committee stuck a continuing 
resolution into this appropriations package, thereby sealing the fate 
that it will not be taken up by the Senate nor signed into law by the 
President.
  Madam Speaker, I find it shameful that House Democrats are playing 
partisan politics with disaster relief. It is so unfortunate and 
shameful that Chairman McGovern and Rules Committee Democrats are 
jeopardizing these funds from reaching the areas that so desperately 
need them.
  Communities pummeled by hurricanes in the Southeast, families 
devastated by wildfires across the West, territories struck by typhoons 
in the Pacific will now have to face the fact that help is not on the 
way.
  Madam Speaker, when I learned that the Rules Committee was going to 
be considering this disaster relief package and allowing amendments on 
the legislation, I, frankly, was looking forward to coming to the House 
floor to commend Chairman McGovern for allowing a vigorous process with 
amendment consideration.

                              {time}  1300

  Unfortunately, they chose to play politics with disaster aid, and not 
only is it disappointing, Madam Speaker, but it is wrong.
  Vote no on this rule. Let us send a message to communities devastated 
by disasters that we will not play politics with the resources they so 
desperately need to rebuild.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington 
State for his comments. I would urge him to stick with his original 
instinct to support the legislation.
  He said that he finds lots of important stuff in it, aiding the 
victims of hurricanes and earthquakes and floods and so on. All of that 
is absolutely right. That is why we are voting for it. We urge him to 
vote for it, too.
  He says that we are playing politics in a shameful way, that we are 
engaged in partisan politics, by adding a measure to reopen the 
Government of the United States that will allow us to get aid to all of 
these people and to allow all our workers to be paid.
  What I consider shameful is holding the Government of the United 
States of America, the Federal workforce, private contractors, and the 
people hostage over a policy debate.
  We have never seen anything like this before, and now it is the 
longest shutdown in history.
  So let's reopen the government. And we are willing to debate anything 
you want, but we can't do it in a hostage-taking, ransom-type 
situation.
  Since when did opening the Government of the United States become a 
poison pill? I just don't see that.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Escobar).
  Ms. ESCOBAR. Madam Speaker, I thank Congressman Raskin for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 268, the 
Disaster Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2019.
  This bill would provide over $12 billion in necessary funds to help 
affected communities recover from natural disasters, including Puerto 
Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and farmers who 
lost crops due to Hurricanes Michael and Florence.
  I would like to thank my colleagues for introducing the underlying 
bill and for making in order an amendment to prevent these funds from 
being used to plan, develop, or construct a new border barrier.
  Sadly, this amendment is necessary because this administration wants 
to divert critical disaster aid meant for other projects to go toward 
border wall construction.
  The reality is that our country needs help recovering from some of 
the greatest natural disasters we have seen in our lifetimes. Puerto 
Rico is still recovering from the devastating aftermath of Hurricane 
Maria, a storm that claimed the lives of nearly 3,000 people.
  I am glad to see that the underlying text provides $600 million in 
disaster nutrition assistance to the island where over 3 million U.S. 
citizens reside.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this measure, the 
underlying text, and this important amendment. Let's hold this 
administration accountable and ensure they do not deceive the American 
people by pulling a bait-and-switch.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser), my good friend and a new member of this 
body.
  Mr. MEUSER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Cole) for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice the frustration of the residents 
of my district in Pennsylvania.
  Two weeks after the start of the 116th Congress, the Democrat 
leadership in the House continues to refuse to come to the table, 
negotiate a compromise, secure our borders, and put an end to the 
shutdown.
  I have been hearing every day from hundreds of people in my district: 
do our jobs, secure the border, put partisanship aside, and get things 
done. Reopen the government, yes, and build a barrier securing the most 
vulnerable parts of our southern border and put an end to this 
humanitarian and national security crisis.
  It is in our hands. This is what the people want, and this is what 
they expect. Instead, Democrat leadership appears to be treating this 
like a game, like we have taken an important issue--disaster relief for 
tragedy-stricken parts of our country--and poisoned it with 
partisanship.
  This is a messaging bill that makes for good talking points on TV, 
but does nothing to make our country safer or end the shutdown. Let's 
negotiate and do what the people expect of us.
  We were sent here to serve the people, not our political ambitions. 
It is long past time we start doing it.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a no vote on the rule and on the underlying 
bill, and I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me the time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, the first thing I am afraid I need to 
point out is that certain of our friends on the other side of the aisle 
are experiencing a kind of a political speech impediment where they are 
unable to correctly pronounce the name of our party. We are the 
Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party.
  I was reading a biography of Franklin D. Roosevelt recently called 
``Traitor to His Class,'' which was very interesting. He said:

       If you don't want to call us the Democratic Party, call us 
     the democracy.

  So those would be the two choices that would be the most suitable, at 
least from our side of the aisle.
  The second thing I want to point out is this is a clean continuing 
resolution. We have not loaded it up with a bunch of partisan 
sweeteners or ideological ``gotcha'' resolutions.
  This is a clean continuing resolution to get disaster assistance to 
our people, the people of the United States, and it opens up our 
government to make that assistance possible so we can end the manmade 
disaster of the shutdown.

  So I think that it well suits those who are saying they both want to 
get the aid to Americans and they want the government of the United 
States to be reopened.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Mrs. 
Lee).
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying 
bill. I am proud to help these communities recover and families rebuild 
their lives after the devastating effects of extreme weather.
  But this bill is also a reminder of the cost of ignoring climate 
change. As the planet continues to warm because of manmade causes, more 
and more communities are at risk of extreme weather.
  In my home State of Nevada, Lake Mead is 50 percent as large as it 
was in the year 2000. As the water level continues to fall, water 
prices will continue to rise for families across southern Nevada.
  According to the GAO, climate change has already cost taxpayers over 
$350 billion over the past decade.
  We must take concrete steps to curb climate change. The costs--both 
human and financial--are already too high.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida

[[Page H622]]

(Mr. Rutherford), my very good friend and former law enforcement 
professional and sheriff.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 
political ultimatum that has now poisoned this bill.
  I had anticipated originally that I would support Chairwoman Lowey's 
proposal to provide disaster relief to American families who were 
struggling to rebuild from these recent disasters, like Hurricane 
Michael that tore up my State of Florida. However, last night, the 
majority slipped into this bill another short-term continuing 
resolution that they know will hold this bill back from ever becoming 
law.
  Instead of doing the right thing and passing a clean disaster relief 
bill, the other side of the aisle continues to play games in an effort 
to resist the President's call for border security with Mexico.
  The Senate and the President have made it clear that government 
funding bills brought to the floor without border security will not be 
signed into law.
  It is time to accept the reality of the situation that we find 
ourselves in. Compromise is the only path forward.
  But the other side of the aisle seems content to blame the President 
while punishing victims of natural disasters, including those in the 
Speaker's own home State of California, who desperately need this 
relief as they recover from devastating wildfires. Attempting to score 
political points at the expense of innocent disaster victims is 
despicable and no way to legislate.
  This bill before us today could have provided much-needed relief for 
Florida families recovering from Hurricane Michael. And it is not just 
families who will suffer; it is also the Florida farmers, and many 
Americans who rely on them, who had their crops devastated by this 
storm.
  It is 26 days into the shutdown, and we are still playing these 
games. Madam Speaker, if you are serious about providing disaster 
relief to Americans, bring a clean supplemental funding bill to the 
floor. Stop playing these games with constituents in the northeast and 
the Panhandle of Florida.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I continue to be baffled about why some of my colleagues think that 
opening the Government of the United States--our government--is a 
poison pill and something they can't support.
  Look how far we have fallen, Madam Speaker. We are voting for 
billions of dollars in aid to the people of Florida, and the people of 
Texas and California and Puerto Rico, so we can deal with the mounting 
natural crises and emergencies around the country. We need to open the 
government to do it, and there are those who say that is too high a 
price. They want to get the aid to the people, but it is too high a 
price to reopen our own government.
  We can't find an example of another democratic country where the 
chief executive has shut down his own government the way that President 
Trump has done in this case.
  We know that he expresses a lot of admiration for Vladimir Putin in 
Russia and for Orban in Hungary and for Duterte in the Philippines and 
the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, who recently ordered out for the 
assassination of a journalist for The Washington Post.
  Those are his friends. Those are the people he looks up to. So maybe 
he thinks this is a normal way of doing business.
  Well, it is not in the United States of America. Let them close the 
government in Russia. Let them send the workforce in Hungary home. Let 
them put the civil servants in the Philippines at rest. Why don't they 
shut down the government of Saudi Arabia?
  Why are they doing this to the people of the United States of 
America?
  We are not playing games. He is playing a game with us. He is holding 
us hostage over his pet obsession, and the American people know it.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. 
Bonamici).
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Maryland for 
yielding time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the Disaster 
Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2019, which will provide relief and 
recovery assistance for those affected by natural disasters.
  I am pleased that this bill includes $150 million for commercial 
fishery and fishery resource disasters declared by the Secretary of 
Commerce.
  Oregon's commercial salmon fisheries were devastated in 2016 and 2017 
when they saw more than a 70 percent decline in their salmon catch 
compared to the 5-year average.
  Despite considerable Federal and State investment in Chinook salmon 
recovery, many factors outside of the control of the fishing industry, 
including drought and changing ocean conditions exacerbated by climate 
change, continue to impede salmon populations. In Oregon, the 2016 
salmon catch levels were so low that they measured among the worst 
nationwide fisheries disasters of the year. And 2017 was even worse, at 
less than half of the 2016 value.
  These disastrous salmon seasons have already hurt the distressed 
economies of the coastal communities that rely on the commercial 
fishing industry.
  I have heard from salmon fishermen like Jeff Reeves. He fishes, he 
farms, and he logs to make ends meet. He scraped, and he invested 
$200,000 in a boat. Then the back-to-back disaster seasons arrived, and 
he had to sell it.
  As Jeff points out, fishermen are small business owners, and a bad 
season can be devastating for their livelihoods.
  I was proud to lead my Oregon colleagues in calling on Secretary Ross 
to declare a disaster declaration for ocean troll Klamath River fall 
Chinook salmon fisheries, and I was glad to see that the secretary 
issued that declaration last fall.
  The $150 million included in this bill will allow those hard-hit 
communities that depend on fisheries revenue, like those in the Pacific 
Northwest, to seek Federal assistance and begin the recovery process.

                              {time}  1315

  I thank Chairman McGovern and Chairwoman Lowey for their leadership, 
and Mr. Raskin, as well, on this commonsense bill to support 
communities affected by natural disasters across the country. I urge 
all of my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I wish to notify the House, Madam Speaker, that if we defeat the 
previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will 
bring up the appropriations package the House passed in December, 
including full funding for the government through February 8, $7.8 
billion for disaster relief, and $5.7 billion for border security.
  Madam Speaker, that is a bill that the Senate will actually take up 
and pass. That is a bill that the President has said he will actually 
sign.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time I have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 16 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, our beloved colleagues across the aisle have asked us 
to come back to the negotiating table and to compromise.
  Madam Speaker, we have compromised. The bills that we started out 
passing were bills that were overwhelmingly or unanimously passed by 
the Republicans in committee or on the floor of the Senate, so we are 
passing their bills to reopen the government. The very first order of 
business is to reopen the government.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I thank my friend again for the time; I thank him for 
participating in the debate; and I congratulate him on being close to 
finishing his first rule.

[[Page H623]]

  Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to respond to a couple of things 
that my good friend said. First of all, he said he brought ``their'' 
bills to the floor, meaning our bills, I presume. He didn't bring our 
bills to the floor. He brought Senate bills to the floor.
  Actually, those bills are nothing like the bills that the House had 
passed and, in many cases, are quite inferior to the product that had 
been jointly compromised between the two bodies.
  Just speaking from something I know very well, which is Indian 
healthcare, the bill that he presented to us had absolutely no House 
input from either Republican or Democratic Members, had $135 million 
less for the Indian Healthcare Service, had $26 million less for the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs. I can go on and on and on.
  The bills actually that, frankly, we were pretty close to having 
conferenced and done were, honestly, quite superior. They had many 
Democratic and Republican suggestions in them and many Member 
suggestions. If we passed what the majority is presenting, all we are 
doing is just turning over the appropriations function of the United 
States House of Representatives to the United States Senate and saying: 
We don't really need a House; anything you guys do is fine.
  That is the product that has been presented to us. It is not 
acceptable to our side to simply throw away House prerogatives and 
positions.
  Again, my friends have the majority here. We respect that. They will 
almost certainly prevail on the rule and on the vote, and I certainly 
accept that. That is the way this institution works.
  But what he fails to tell me is whether or not he is ever going to 
get the Senate to ever pick this up. So far, he hasn't. This is the 
fourth attempt. We will see another one tomorrow. Whether or not he can 
actually produce legislation that the President of the United States 
will sign, so far, he hasn't. And they are the majority.
  Under our constitutional system, passing legislation through the 
House is simply not sufficient. It has to be able to pass the United 
States Senate. It has to be signed by the President of the United 
States, unless two-thirds of the House and the Senate are willing to 
override his veto. Frankly, I don't think my friends have two-thirds 
majority here either, and they certainly don't in the United States 
Senate.
  So I have a modest proposal. Probably the people who are producing 
this legislation here should sit down and talk with the United States 
Senate ahead of time and say: Can we split the difference here? Can we 
find some common ground?
  Actually, the President did that in December, literally sent the Vice 
President to the negotiation to say: We would like to get $5 billion. 
We think that is the appropriate amount. But what if we settle at $2\1/
2\ billion? The answer was no.
  That is a normal, reasonable compromise. It is called splitting the 
difference. The President tried to do that.
  I do commend my friends, because I know they are serious about 
wanting to reopen the government. We would love to work with them on 
getting that done, but it is going to entail some compromise.
  Frankly, over the next 2 years, if my friends want to get anything 
done, and I know they do, they will have to compromise.
  Been there before. We were in a situation where we were the majority 
in the United States House of Representatives with a Democratic 
majority in the Senate and a Democratic President. It took, I will say, 
some of my colleagues a long time to figure out that we had to have 
help in the United States Senate, and we had to have a President that 
would sign bills, and we were going to have to compromise on some 
things that we thought were fundamentally very, very important.

  I suggest my friends learn from our experience in that regard.
  Again, I respect the effort to reopen the government. I would love to 
participate in it. This bill, quite frankly, could have been something 
that I think would have started us down the right direction, and it 
almost was.
  We had Members on both sides of the aisle that very much wanted to 
vote for this legislation. Frankly, and again, I commend the chairman 
of our committee, Mr. McGovern. He set up a process so that we could 
provide amendments, Member input. We had full consideration of those 
amendments in the Rules Committee. I would have liked a few more to be 
made in order, but I can't complain about the ones that were. I think 
it was a fair process.
  Only the Democratic leadership's insistence on putting something that 
they knew the Senate would not pick up, and they knew the President 
would not sign, stopped that disaster relief bill. That is all. That 
literally could have been passed out of here today, could have been 
passed immediately by the United States Senate, would have been signed 
by the President, would have gotten us out of this cycle at least a 
little bit, would have shown us what functioning government actually 
looks like. But I guess the theater of the moment is more important 
than actually getting disaster relief to people, so we will go through 
this exercise yet again.
  Madam Speaker, in closing, I urge opposition to this rule and the 
underlying measure. The majority has taken a noncontroversial, 
bipartisan, supplemental disaster appropriations bill and has turned it 
into a political football. Today's bill was originally intended to 
provide relief for disaster victims, and, instead, the majority has 
turned it into yet another continuing resolution that is not going 
anywhere.
  This is the same continuing resolution that the House previously 
passed and that the Senate refused to consider. Whether the Democrats 
like it or not, they need to engage with Republicans on border 
security. Instead, they are now bringing up their fourth attempt to 
pass a government funding bill without border security. And this time, 
they are using disaster victims as leverage to push their policies.
  The majority would be better served to undertake serious negotiations 
with Republicans over the need for border security and find a way out 
of the crisis of their making, rather than pushing the exact same bill 
again.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on 
the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for conceding the 
fairness of the amendment process that we have adopted here today, and 
I do hope that it will be the beginning of a new era in Congress where 
we can work together and bring in the best ideas from everybody.
  Having said that, we still have a disagreement, and the disagreement 
is this: We brought forward four continuing resolutions that 
incorporated the language that came from Republicans in the Senate, and 
were voted out on a 92-6 basis, in order to pass it.
  Now, my distinguished colleague says, well, maybe the Republicans in 
the House would have felt differently about that. Well, of course, they 
controlled the House in the last session, but they adjourned without us 
ever taking it up. They adjourned into Christmas break and into a 
shutdown.
  We were left with this mess when we got into power. That is why our 
first order of business must be to reopen the Government of the United 
States. We have offered multiple continuing resolutions in order to do 
that. In fact, I think a dozen of my Republican colleagues have already 
voted for different CRs in order to keep the government going.
  So when the gentleman kindly asks: ``Well, how can you expect us to 
do this?'' lots of Republicans understand the urgency of reopening the 
government.
  One position says: We will reopen the government if you do what we 
want. Our position is: Let's reopen the government.
  You see the difference there? We are not holding anybody hostage. 
There is no political ransom. We are not making any demands. We are 
saying: Let's pass this legislation that has overwhelming, if not 
unanimous, support to get disaster relief to our people, and let's 
reopen the government so we can get them the relief.
  Instead, we get accused of playing political games. They call 
reopening the Government of the United States a poison pill. That has 
to be making some history in itself.
  The word ``emergency'' has been bandied about a lot, Madam Speaker, 
over

[[Page H624]]

the last few weeks. The President even threatened to invoke emergency 
powers that he thinks he has in order to impose his fantasy wall on the 
government when it is very clear that he didn't get it through 2 years 
of a Republican-controlled House and Senate. And he is not getting it 
through this Congress, and he didn't get the funding from the Mexican 
Government, which was what the original promise was.
  So now he wants to see if he can find emergency powers to do it, but 
he has delayed the emergency. Think about that. It is as if you saw an 
emergency in your neighborhood, and you say: Well, instead of calling 
the police or the fire department, I will wait a few weeks to do it.
  That is not a real emergency. What is a real emergency?
  Well, climate change is obviously a real emergency. The entire weight 
of scientific evidence tells us that is a real emergency.
  The government shutdown is an emergency for more than 800,000 Federal 
employees who now have to explain to their kids why they don't have a 
paycheck and why they are borrowing from their own retirement funds or 
from the kids' college funds.

  Where people can't get needed medical care, they are not able to pay 
for medically indicated conditions they have because they don't have 
the money to do it, that is an emergency.
  Hurricanes Florence and Michael, those are emergencies, and that is 
why we want to get aid to the people there.
  That is what this legislation is all about.
  The California wildfires, which killed dozens of Americans, that is 
an emergency. That is why we are trying to get aid out to the people of 
California.
  But a legislative debate over the proper means of homeland security 
when we spent more than $9 billion on homeland security over the last 
decade, and our side is fighting for the best innovations, the best 
technology to invest in border security? That is not an emergency. That 
is a legislative debate that we can have.
  So we go back to the basic point: Let's get aid to our people, from 
Puerto Rico to North Carolina and South Carolina, from Florida to 
Texas. That is what this bill does. It gets aid to our people. It 
reopens the Government of the United States. It puts us back in the 
business of promoting the general welfare.
  That is what we have been sent here to do, to promote justice and the 
general welfare and domestic tranquility, not shut down the government. 
Let's open it up, and let's get aid to the people of the United States 
of America. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support for H.R. 
268, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, which provides funding for 
disaster recovery and provides for a short term continuing resolution 
that would reopen the government.
  My thanks to the leadership of Chairman McGovern for allowing the 
inclusion of a short-term Continuing Resolution that would reopen the 
Federal government and allow back pay to over 800,000 federal 
employees.
  A compassionate and commonsense amendment by Chairwoman Lowey to the 
Disaster Supplemental will end the Trump Shutdown, reopen the 
government through February 8, and immediately provide back pay to all 
impacted federal workers.
  The Federal Government can reopen allowing the Congress and the White 
House time to negotiate on border security and an agreement on 
immigration policy.
  I can attest to the importance of Emergency Disaster Supplemental 
Appropriations to the efforts of communities to recover following 
Hurricane Harvey.
  Texans, especially those living in the Houston area impacted by 
Hurricane Harvey continue working towards recovery, which would not 
have been possible without Federal emergency appropriations.
  We are in the midst of a government shutdown that is unnecessary and 
wasteful and would impede the use of the very funds provided by this 
bill.
  Americans who have been affected by natural disasters caused by 
Hurricanes Florence and Michael and the California wildfires must be 
able to count on a federal government that is fully open and operating.
  This appropriation measure also includes much needed funds for Puerto 
Rico, which was not provided with sufficient funding to effect the 
recovery following the catastrophe caused by an inadequate response by 
the White House to the disaster.
  Caught in the crosshairs of the government shutdown are 800,000 
hardworking government employees who want nothing more than to do an 
honest day's work, and be fairly remunerated for their efforts.
  More than anyone else, this government shutdown imperils their 
financial freedom and security, which makes our country less strong.
  Mortgage and rent payments are going unpaid; credit ratings are being 
damaged; families are being made more insecure.
  This situation requires each member of the House to vote for the Rule 
and the underlying bill to reopen the government, while providing vital 
assistance to fellow Americans recovering from major disasters.
  Instead of President Trump ending his shutdown, he is threatening to 
take Emergency Supplemental funding provided by the 115th Congress to 
assist with Hurricane Harvey Army Corps projects to address flooding 
risks posed by future storms, and divert the funding for the 
construction of his border wall.
  Those disaster funds were appropriated for recovery efforts 
associated with Hurricanes Harvey, Jose, and Maria.
  This President is so easily consumed by concerns over a wall to the 
point that he cannot see real threats such as the vulnerability of 
coastal communities to powerful hurricanes.
  The people along the Texas Gulf Coast face real threats from 
hurricanes that are increasingly more violent, and result in 
catastrophic losses.
  The only defense against hurricanes is improving resilience and 
survivability of communities from wind, storm surge and rain.
  For this reason, I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for the 
Rule for H.R. 268.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Cole is as follows:

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, an amendment offered by Representative Cole of 
     Oklahoma or a designee shall be in order as though printed as 
     the last amendment in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution. That amendment shall 
     be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent.

  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on:
  Adoption of the resolution, if ordered; and
  The motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 190.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 194, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 34]

                               YEAS--230

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton

[[Page H625]]


     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--194

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Beyer
     Jones
     Marino
     Massie
     Mast
     Matsui
     Payne
     Sensenbrenner
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1355

  Messrs. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, COMER, ZELDIN, Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER, 
Mr. KINZINGER, and Ms. GRANGER changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. McGOVERN, GREEN of Texas, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Messrs. CLYBURN, 
and SWALWELL of California changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  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. COLE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 193, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 35]

                               YEAS--230

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--193

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Beyer
     Hudson
     Jones
     Marino
     Massie
     Mast
     Matsui
     Payne
     Sensenbrenner
     Wilson (FL)

[[Page H626]]


  



                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1402

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. HUDSON. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed a 
vote.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 35.

                          ____________________