Congressional Record, Volume 165 Issue 9 (Wednesday, January 16, 2019)

[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

[[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.

____________________