[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 182 (Thursday, November 14, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H8838-H8845]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1230
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HR. 4863, UNITED STATES EXPORT FINANCE 
               AGENCY ACT OF 2019; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 695 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 695

       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. 4863) to promote the competitiveness of the 
     United States, to reform and reauthorize the United States 
     Export Finance Agency, 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 Financial Services. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Financial Services now printed in the bill, an amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 116-36 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. No further 
     amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except 
     those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. 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 on any further amendment thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Section 201 of House Resolution 6 is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) In subsection (f)(3), strike ``At the conclusion of the 
     first session of the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress'' and 
     insert ``By October 30, 2020''.
       (2) In subsection (g)(1), strike ``on February 1, 2020'' 
     and insert ``at the conclusion of the One Hundred Sixteenth 
     Congress''.
       Sec. 3.  House Resolution 661 is hereby adopted.
       Sec. 4.  House Resolution 693 is hereby adopted.
       Sec. 5. (a) At any time on the legislative day of Thursday, 
     November 21, 2019, it shall be in order without intervention 
     of any point of order to consider in the House a motion to 
     discharge the Committee on Foreign Affairs from further 
     consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 70) 
     directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War 
     Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from 
     hostilities in the Syrian Arab Republic that have not been 
     authorized by Congress, if offered by Representative Gabbard 
     of Hawaii. The motion shall be considered as read. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to its adoption without intervening motion except 20 
     minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by 
     Representative Gabbard of Hawaii and an opponent. The 
     question of adoption of the motion may be subject to 
     postponement as though under clause 8 of rule XX.
       (b) The provisions of section 7 of the War Powers 
     Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1546) shall not apply during the 
     remainder of the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress to House 
     Concurrent Resolution 70.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), 
pending which I yield myself such time

[[Page H8839]]

as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
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 California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 695, providing for the consideration 
of H.R. 4863, the United States Export Finance Agency Act, under a 
structured rule.
  The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by 
the chair and ranking member on the Committee on Financial Services, 
makes in order 21 amendments, and provides for a motion to recommit. It 
also provides that, upon passage of the rule, H. Res. 661 and H. Res. 
693 will be hereby adopted. Additionally, it makes the motion to 
discharge H. Con. Res. 70 in order on November 21 if offered by 
Representative Gabbard, debatable for 20 minutes. Lastly, the rule 
extends the positive work of the Select Committee on the Modernization 
of Congress to the conclusion of the 116th Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, given that the United States is the third largest 
exporter of goods in the world, maintaining and supporting this 
industry is imperative for our economic well-being and for good-paying 
jobs across the country. In 2018, we shipped over $2.5 trillion worth 
of commercial aircraft, machinery, industrial supplies, consumer goods, 
and agricultural products overseas.
  The Export-Import Bank, or Ex-Im Bank, plays a large role in 
supporting that business. Through direct loans, medium- and long-term 
loan guarantees, working capital, and insurance, the Ex-Im Bank steps 
in where private financing is unavailable and has been supporting 
American exporters for nearly a century. Because of work like this, in 
the last 10 years, Ex-Im has created 1.7 million American jobs.
  Over the last several years, we have seen the Bank go through a lot 
of unnecessary political turmoil. After successfully reauthorizing the 
Bank in 2015, the Senate has failed to confirm board members. Under 
current law, without Senate action, the Bank was left almost 
inoperable.
  The effects were felt across the Nation, and in my own district, it 
was affected there. In the past 5 years, my district in northern 
California has been home to nine exporters, of which seven are small 
businesses and five are owned by women and minorities. After Senate 
negligence left the Bank unable to do its work, today there are only 
three exporters remaining in my district.
  In today's bill to reauthorize the Bank, we make substantial 
improvements that not only address the political problems displayed in 
the Senate, but also improve and diversify the Bank's activities. In 
short, the United States Export Finance Agency Act will help support 
even more jobs, with new emphasis on small business, women- and 
minority-owned businesses.
  As a former small business owner, I am encouraged by this effort. To 
stay on top, the United States must stay competitive. This bill gives 
us that chance to help workers, help businesses, and help our economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
and thank my friend from California for yielding me the time.
  I want to tell a different story, Mr. Speaker. You and I haven't 
gotten a chance to work together down here when I have really gotten to 
come down here and really sell these rules, because back when I was in 
the majority on the Rules Committee, we didn't always get it right; 
but, as a rank-and-file member of the committee, I always had a chance 
to improve the bill, to make it better, to try to hear some voices.
  My friend from Florida is not down here with us today. My friend from 
California knows, the worst thing about having Alcee Hastings on your 
committee is that he gets all fired up and all geared up, and you 
almost get upset because so often he is right, and he is pointing out 
your flaws and he is making you do it better. We need more of that from 
one another, Mr. Speaker, where we get ourselves wound up, not about 
Republicans and Democrats, but about how to do the process better.
  I know that your week and my friend from California's week has been 
just like my week. It started out with Veterans Day events back home in 
your district. And you didn't find a man or a woman who said, ``Let's 
do better for Republican veterans but not so much for Democratic 
veterans,'' or vice versa. You found men and women who were proud of 
their service. You found men and women who wanted to support those men 
and women who had served us. You found folks grateful for our 
opportunities to be in community with one another and do better 
tomorrow than we did yesterday.
  Then we showed up here on Tuesday after Veterans Day break and we 
started with our suspension calendar.
  For the life of me, I don't understand why this institution hides all 
the good things that it does and accentuates all the controversial 
things it does. If we took a poll outside the Capitol today, Mr. 
Speaker, I just want to ask you, and I want to make sure I get it 
right: How many folks walking past the Capitol today know that, in a 
bipartisan way, you and I and the gentleman from California came 
together on Tuesday and passed General Bergman's GI Bill Planning Act 
to ease the burden on new servicemembers as they try to sort out 
accessing their education benefits?
  This is an important issue that has been plaguing our veterans. We 
have been talking about it here in this institution. We got together on 
Monday, and we did it together. Not one headline, not one 6 p.m. news 
story. Republicans and Democrats standing together in this House on 
behalf of veterans who were not being served as well as we knew we 
could serve them, we fixed it together, but that is not what we are 
talking about.

  How many folks, Mr. Speaker, if we go outside today, are going to 
know that we passed Ms. Brownley's Deborah Sampson Act, which 
recognizes the different needs that women veterans and newborn children 
have and established a department within the VA to make sure those 
needs are met?
  Yes, the VA was formed as a male-centric institution. Of course, in 
2019, there are going to be needs that were unmet. We have known that. 
We have talked about that. We have pushed that down the road. But this 
House this week came together, Republicans and Democrats, to solve that 
issue once and for all, but I challenge you to find somebody standing 
outside who knows that is what their U.S. House of Representatives has 
been working on this week.
  What about Mr. Cunningham's VA Tele-Hearing Modernization Act? You 
have the same concerns in your veterans community that I do, Mr. 
Speaker: folks trying to file their appeals, trying to get in touch 
with those hearing boards, but because their mobility is limited, 
because they are distant from those population centers, they can't get 
that done. Mr. Cunningham's bill improves the ability to do that with 
the telecommunications that are available to us in 2019.
  Of course, we should have gotten that done. Of course, we should 
have. We have been working on it; we have been perfecting it. This 
week, this House, Republicans and Democrats, came together and did that 
for veterans, too.
  Mr. Harder's Protecting Families of Fallen Servicemembers Act, to 
ensure that family members of servicemen and -women and Active-Duty 
reservists who were killed or seriously injured on Active Duty are 
allowed to terminate their financial dealings back home in a way that 
is easy.
  My father passed away last summer, Mr. Speaker. It is incredibly 
difficult when you lose a family member to deal with all of those end-
of-life issues, all of those financial issues. The last thing our 
service families need to be dealing with is sorting through all of that 
paperwork.
  We have now come together in a collaborative partnership way to solve 
that issue. I challenge you to find a man or woman outside the Capitol 
who knows that.
  Now, why do I tell you that story, Mr. Speaker? I tell you that story 
because that was just Monday and Tuesday, a little bit of Wednesday, 
and we are not talking about that on the floor of this House. Instead, 
I am down here today to talk about the Ex-Im Bank

[[Page H8840]]

bill, which is an important bill, an important bill that we could have 
done in a bipartisan way but didn't.
  I don't know if you remember those headlines. I brought them down 
here with me, Mr. Speaker, if you don't recall them. This is when we 
produced the bipartisan Ex-Im Bank bill, the one that was going to 
committee, the one that Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member McHenry 
worked out together in a bipartisan way back in June: ``Export-Import 
Bank Deal in Peril Amid Democratic Backlash.''

                              {time}  1245

  The bipartisan bill that had been worked out didn't meet the 
standards of some in the Democratic Caucus. The bill got pulled back.
  ``Democrats Defy Waters on Ex-Im Bank Restrictions''. Again, this is 
a bill to reform the Ex-Im Bank. It imposed some new restrictions. The 
Democratic Caucus pushed back. The bipartisan bill was pulled.
  What we have before us today, Mr. Speaker, is a bill that is 
completely partisan in its passage. The only thing that is bipartisan 
about the bill today is the folks that voted against it. Republicans 
and Democrats said: No, this is not the right bill. Only Democrats 
said: This is the right bill.
  All of these things we could be doing in partnership, things like Ex-
Im Bank that started in partnership. It seems we go out of our way to 
focus on our divisions instead of our successes.
  So when we went to the Rules Committee in the midst of all of these 
great veterans bills passing the floor of the House, we advocated to 
make improvements to the Ex-Im Bank bill. Again, this was a bill that 
started out as a bipartisan bill, a collaborative bill, one that had 
been sorted out between Republicans and Democrats so that we could move 
forward, and it turned into a partisan bill.
  We went up to the Rules Committee to try to get some Republican 
amendments made in order to try to improve the bill in some way.
  I know it is popular, and the lore back home is if you are in a 
different party, you don't have anything productive to add to the 
debate. I hear that at some county meetings, and I am sure my friends 
on the other side of the aisle do, too. It is just nonsense.
  Having good ideas does not have a Republican or Democratic 
requirement to it. Folks on both sides of the aisle have something to 
offer.
  But when Republicans brought their ideas to the Rules Committee, Mr. 
Speaker, with the exception of two Republican amendments, every other 
idea was rejected. Every other idea was rejected.
  Now, that is the way it went in committee, too, Mr. Speaker. If you 
weren't following the committee hearings, the amendments in committee 
the Republicans offered were rejected on a party-line vote.
  They had their chance in the Rules Committee to improve upon it. 
Those amendments: rejected one by one.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, and it gives me no pleasure to say this, 
because my chairman on the Rules Committee works very hard, the last 
two rules I have been down here to talk about, Republicans got the same 
number or even a few more amendments than Democrats got. It was the 
first time it had happened that I had been down here carrying such a 
rule, and it did bring some partnership back to the institution.
  But for this bill, the Ex-Im Bank, how do we finance trade in 
America, not a partisan issue, we have got individual Democratic 
Members who have been offered more amendments personally than the 
entire Republican Party has collectively. Let me say that again, Mr. 
Speaker, because this institution is divided roughly down the middle 
here. I have got individual Members of the Democratic Party who have 
been offered personally more opportunities to change and improve this 
bill than the entire Republican side of the aisle combined. Combined. 
It is as if we go out of our way to find division in what ought to be 
partnership issues.
  Eighty-one percent of the amendments that are offered are Democratic 
amendments; 17 Democratic amendments made in order, two Republican 
amendments, two bipartisan amendments.
  The funny thing about this institution, Mr. Speaker, and you see it 
better from your chair than any of us do from our chairs, is that if 
you are in the majority, you get to win. Two things are important to 
winning. Being in the majority means you have the votes. Now you have 
to bring a good idea to pair with those votes. You can carry the day.
  We have gotten into that habit, Mr. Speaker, of having all 
Republicans or all of Democrats carry the bills one direction or the 
other.
  Where are those opportunities, like we did on veteran bill after 
veteran bill after veteran bill on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, 
to come together and do things collaboratively?
  I will give you another example. I don't understand what the self-
loathing is from time to time here, Mr. Speaker, that prevents us from 
celebrating what is the most democratic institution in the world today.
  This rule that we are talking about today hides deep within it an 
extension of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress. The 
Select Committee on Modernization is a bipartisan committee, it is the 
only one we have right now, Mr. Speaker, equal number of Republicans 
and Democrats. Why? Because they are not working on partisan issues. 
They are trying to improve the institution. They are trying to improve 
the process. They are trying to make this institution work better for 
the American people.
  It is led by two great Members of this institution: Derek Kilmer out 
of Washington State,   Tom Graves out of the great State of Georgia. 
Mr. Kilmer is a Democrat, Mr. Graves is a Republican. They have been 
leading this committee in partnership together, tackling thorny issue 
after thorny issue in a collaborative way.
  The House only authorized the committee for a year. This rule gives 
them a second year. It is a great idea, it is a great thing to do.
  Because this is a rule and because it contains all of these 
provisions that completely shut out Republican contributions on the 
Financial Services legislation that is before us today, it is going to 
pass on a party-line vote. All the Democrats are going to vote ``yes,'' 
many having not read it, as is the function of rules, all Republicans 
are going to vote ``no.''
  We have a chance here to have taken that language out, to have done 
that together, to have talked about the successes we have had 
collaboratively on the Modernization Committee. We are missing that 
chance today.
  I am not enough of a failed student in mathematics, Mr. Speaker, to 
believe that I am going to prevail on the vote on the rule today. I 
have done the math again in my head. They still have more votes than we 
have. I am prepared to lose.

  What I am not prepared to do is give up on doing better.
  I challenge my friends on both sides of the aisle to find a partisan 
advantage in extending the Modernization Committee hidden inside the 
rule instead of having that debate on the floor of the House. You won't 
find it there.
  I challenge the body to find a partisan advantage to spending 10 
minutes on Tuesday talking about serving veterans in a bipartisan way 
and spending 2 hours on Thursday and Friday talking about financial 
services in a way that could have been bipartisan, but instead has been 
converted to a strictly partisan issue, and to add insult to injury, 
has denied all but two Republican amendments and bipartisan voices to 
the debate.
  I know that habits are difficult things to break. Some of the bad 
habits that we are in in this institution started under Republican 
leadership, some of the bad habits that we are in in this institution 
started under Democratic leadership.
  If we want to have a day of debate on who is to blame, I have a 
pretty good idea how those lines would fall out. I am not interested in 
that day of debate. I am interested in a day of debate not talking 
about who is to blame, but talking about how we are working together to 
fix it.
  Because I don't know if your constituency is anything like mine, but 
my constituency is starting to think that we have given up working 
together to fix it. When my constituency turns on Fox News or MSNBC, 
that is not what the talking head of the day is talking about.
  The thing that keeps me up at night, Mr. Speaker, isn't all the 
things we are voting against, it is all the things we

[[Page H8841]]

miss an opportunity to vote for, those things that, because we are here 
in community together today, we have an opportunity to fix.
  I have got one for you, if you are interested and if you haven't had 
a chance to take a look at it. It is the Adoptee Citizenship Act, Mr. 
Speaker. It is just crazy to me.
  The best part of this job, as my friend from California knows, is 
that really smart people spend time with us to make us smarter.
  The Adoptee Citizenship Act, it is H.R. 2731, is a bill that my 
Democratic colleague, Adam Smith, and I have offered together. When 
American families adopted children from overseas in the 1970s and 
1980s, those children didn't automatically get citizenship.
  You would think an American family adopts a child, that child has 
American parents, they are going to become an American citizen. Not so, 
Mr. Speaker. It is an incredibly long process.
  Now, in the 1970s and 1980s, we didn't care that much about that, but 
fast forward to September 11, 2001, we started talking a lot about 
citizenship status, only to find out that thousands upon thousands of 
Americans didn't have their citizenship because their parents didn't 
know they had to file all of this additional paperwork.
  Now, who among us is opposed to letting American families that have 
been American families for 40 years, citizens who were adopted into 
American families, get that citizenship document and live the normal 
life that we all thought they were supposed to be living here? H.R. 
2731.
  The list of things that we do collaboratively, cooperatively that 
make differences for the American people is as long as any statement 
anyone is going to read on the floor of the House today, and it is not 
going to be what we celebrate this week.
  The last vote today is at 2 o'clock. We are going to do amendment 
debate for the rest of the day. If we don't start spending more time on 
this floor celebrating those things that we are doing together, Mr. 
Speaker, we are going to lose the confidence of our constituency back 
home. I dare say, for many families, they have lost confidence in us 
already.
  I don't shy away from the serious fights we are going to have down 
here at all. This is supposed to be a place where serious people come 
together and disagree about some ideas and sort it all out.
  What I take issue with is when we stop trying to sort it all out and 
when we send the message back home that instead of succeeding on behalf 
of our bosses, we are actually just arguing amongst ourselves. It is 
not true. It is not true.
  We are missing another opportunity today, as our ranking member said 
in the Rules Committee debate last night, to do better. I know that we 
have men and women on this floor, in this institution who want to do 
better.
  Can we fix it this afternoon? Maybe not. Will we fix it if we stop 
focusing on it? Definitely not.
  My commitment to my colleagues, for better or for worse, is that I 
will spend my next 14 months focusing on it as long as my friend from 
California continues to yield me 30 minutes in the Rules Committee 
debate, for which I am grateful.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. DeSaulnier) for his leadership, and my good friend from Georgia, I 
thank him for his explanation of the process of democracy in this 
place.
  But I am excited to announce that this is a bipartisan effort, 
because the bipartisan aspect of it are the results of how this 
legislation will impact all of America irrespective, not respecting, 
their region, their faith, or their party.
  Let me be very clear to say what we are actually talking about today 
and the real-life stories that make a difference. It is called the 
Export-Import Bank and it is legislated as the United States Export 
Finance Agency, and its short name, as I said, Export-Import.
  What does that mean?
  I rise to support it, because it means something to individual 
businesses. It means something to rural American farmers. It means 
something to small manufacturers.

  We have been documenting that manufacturing is going down, 
manufacturing based upon how you sell your products.
  This is a 10-year plan with $175 billion to help those businesses, 
those small farms, those entrepreneurs in your community. That is jobs.
  What it means is the company that makes light bulbs can now export 
those to developing nations on the continent of Africa or they can go 
deep into Southeast Asia or Asia and sell products from the United 
States to a foreign country.
  For those of us who have seen the lopsidedness, there are governments 
that actually fund businesses outside the United States. We don't do 
that, mostly, unless it is through a grant or through a funding for a 
project that we need, and so you are on your own.
  But this is going to provide small businesses with an extra hand up. 
It is going to help those who are, in particular, minority and women-
owned businesses, along with others. It is going to create a process so 
that it does not lapse.
  We had a period where there was no quorum. We couldn't help small 
businesses.
  I remember sitting in a room with this company in a foreign country, 
a U.S. company that was there, and they said, ``If it had not been for 
the Export-Import Bank, we would have lost 300 employees in the United 
States.''

                              {time}  1300

  This is bipartisan. This is where we help people, no matter who they 
are. I am a strong supporter of this bill because it takes into 
consideration working men and women, and it takes into consideration 
the environment.
  All of our union friends, who provide a pathway of success for 
working Americans, support this bill because it helps bring back 
manufacturing. We support it because it gives alternative options for 
energy a boost where jobs can be created with renewable energy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me just simply say that you have to 
live this to understand it, and I have spoken to those businesses that 
have benefited from Export-Import.
  It sounds like a name that you can't get your hands around, but just 
understand it simply. You want to do business overseas. You want to get 
your products overseas. It is a big hurdle. You need additional 
finance. This is the place to come.
  And they have been successful in paying for themselves. That $175 
billion is over 10 years, but it pays for itself with the number of 
businesses that Americans can take advantage of and create new 
businesses for the sole purpose of selling that product overseas, 
selling that small farmer produce, what is on that small farm, allowing 
them to send it to markets that are desperate for the wonderful bounty 
of food products that we are able to raise in this wonderful country.
  In particular, I would like to add, it is a good place for veterans 
who want to start their business, to add to their business, because 
many of them, obviously, understand the international realm.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I support this bill, the Ex-Im 
Bank, and I hope that my colleagues will support it.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that I 
agree with every good thing my friend from Texas said that the Ex-Im 
Bank is able to do, which is why, when this bill began, it was a 
bipartisan bill by the chairwoman of the committee and the ranking 
Republican on the committee. It devolved from that so that, as it 
passed out of committee, it is not a bipartisan bill.
  The only thing bipartisan about this bill is the opposition to it. 
Republicans and Democrats opposed it in committee. Only Democrats 
support it because of the partisan turn that it took.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Lucas), the gentleman from the Financial Services Committee who tried 
to make the bill better. He offered two amendments in the Rules 
Committee that would have brought bipartisan support to this bill.

[[Page H8842]]

  

  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to ask my colleagues to reject 
the rule that would enable a vote later this week on reauthorizing the 
Export-Import Bank.
  Many of you will say: ``Why, Frank, of all people, would you come to 
the floor to ask for the rejection of the rule and the underlying 
bill?'' The reason they would ask that is because no one has worked 
harder than I have, in my career here, to make sure that this economic 
tool is available to American businesses. No one has struggled harder 
than I have to make sure that those individuals who make their living 
in the industries that use the Bank are able to continue to do that. No 
one has worked harder.
  The last time this bill was reauthorized, I sat in the majority. My 
leadership at that time was opposed to the reauthorization of the 
Export-Import Bank. My colleague from Tennessee and I used a procedure 
from the beginning of the previous century to discharge a clean version 
of the bill, to bring it to the floor, to pass it, and, ultimately, for 
it to be passed by the Senate and signed by the President. So there is 
no one who appreciates more than I do the importance of this bill.
  So, why am I here? I had a couple of amendments offered in the Rules 
Committee. I know some of my colleagues have said: ``Frank, why didn't 
you offer those amendments in the markup of the bill?'' Well, Mr. 
Speaker, I have been around here long enough, and I have been in this 
great life that we live long enough, to understand there are some 
fundamental rules.
  My ranking member and my chairman on that committee engaged in one of 
the most splendid, intense, philosophical battles over reauthorizing 
this bill that you will ever see. They fought hard over every 
principle. They had proponents on both sides of the committee trying to 
drive the bill further to the left and, simultaneously, further to the 
right. That is a difficult set of issues to balance out.
  You say: ``Well, Frank, why weren't you engaged?'' There is an old 
country logic that goes something like this: When your neighbor's bull 
jumps into your pasture, or when two of your bulls get in the same 
pasture together and engage in a fight and get mad and get hot and try 
to fight to the death, you don't get between them because they will 
kill you. They will kill you.
  My perspective was, let the committee do its will, but on the floor 
of this United States House, let's offer alternatives.
  You say: ``What were your amendments that were rejected that would 
have made a difference?''
  Amendment No. 17 simply reflected what the White House had said: Send 
us a clean 10-year reauthorization.
  Clean, 10 years. Straightforward, understandable, logical.
  But being the practical fellow I am, I offered amendment No. 18. What 
did No. 18 say? Basically, it was the most popular bill in the United 
States Senate at this time to reauthorize the institution: a 10-year 
reauthorization, raise the capitalization level to $175 billion, and 
address the quorum requirement.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman because we are hearing from a member of the committee who 
supports the Bank but who opposes this rule.

  Mr. LUCAS. Either amendment, I believe, would have passed the floor. 
One amendment would have assured us a signature immediately. The second 
amendment would have assured us, I believe, passage in the Senate. But 
the forces fought themselves to exhaustion.
  I came, as I had before, to appeal to this body as a whole. I was 
denied that opportunity. So, yes, I am voting against the rule. I will 
vote against the bill because, you see, somebody that matters greatly 
on the other side of this campus said this bill will never be heard 
over there, will never be heard.
  I am here to make things happen, working with you. I am here working 
on behalf of our constituents, working with you. That is what I tried.
  Reject the rule. Force this back to the Rules Committee. Give me a 
second chance. Give me a second chance. But you have to vote ``no'' on 
the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for the opportunity 
to express my concerns.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I first want to recognize my colleague from Oklahoma and 
his passion, his history on this bill, and his argument. I also want to 
thank him for the bull analogy, although I am not sure how the chair of 
the committee might take that.
  Having said that, I do want to say to my friend from Georgia a little 
bit about his comments. I find myself in agreement whenever I come down 
here on much of what Mr. Woodall says in terms of the aspiration of 
working more together and still keeping our unique perspectives on 
things.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope that he would admit that the chair of the 
Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern, and the ranking member--certainly, two 
of the Members I respect the most, in addition to my colleague. We have 
had these debates in the committee, and I think that there is an 
earnest effort of both parties to do better. As you said, we can do 
better.
  So I would like to thank my colleague for mentioning and referring to 
the instances when we did agree. I would like to remind us all that Mr. 
McGovern has been very insistent on the 72-hour rule, which has been 
helpful. We have done a higher percentage of structured rules to date, 
and fewer closed rules to date, under his leadership than we did under 
the previous Congress. Just 2 weeks ago, not that this is a baseball 
game, there were three times as many Republican amendments in the 
natural resources bill as there were Democratic.
  Having said that, I think we can do better.
  I do want to note to my colleague that I am a cosponsor of the 
Adoptee Citizen Act, a great piece of legislation with great authors. 
As we continue to try to do more together and better together, I think 
you know I yearn to serve in a body like that, where we have legitimate 
differences of opinion from our perspective, from what our constituents 
expect, and there is honest respect for both sides, that we create a 
work product that is probably more reflective of both. I have said that 
before. We have had this discussion.
  In this instance, I think we are trying to do better all the time. 
For me, and I know for the chair and our staff, we want to continue to 
work with the gentleman to do better.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do enjoy working with my friend from California. When 
I am critical of our work product, I am critical of all 13 of us on the 
Rules Committee. We are tasked with getting the job done, and when we 
don't get it done, it falls on all of us.
  I was critical earlier today of stuffing so many things into this 
rule because I like to do things one at a time. But if we are going to 
stuff all the things into this rule, Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell 
my colleagues that if we defeat the previous question, I will add one 
more into this rule. It will be a collaborative effort, not a 
Republican effort, a collaborative effort. If we defeat the previous 
question, Mr. Speaker, I will add an amendment that will bring to the 
floor H.R. 2207. That is the Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2019, 
which most of my colleagues know is the bill to prevent the medical 
device tax, eliminate that tax.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment and any extraneous materials in the Record immediately prior 
to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I told you this was a bipartisan piece of 
legislation. It has 253 bipartisan cosponsors. It is authored by a 
Democrat from Wisconsin, a great Member, Mr. Kind, and it makes a real 
difference to so many Americans. I can't explain it as well as my 
friend from Indiana can.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. 
Walorski), a Member who has worked

[[Page H8843]]

tirelessly to correct this legislative flaw on behalf of the American 
people.
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, if we defeat the 
previous question, Republicans will amend the rule to include the 
consideration of the repeal of the medical device tax.
  The medical device tax hurts jobs and innovation, preventing the 
development of cutting-edge, lifesaving technologies. That also 
increases the cost of patient care for all of our constituents, 
Republican and Democrat. There is not a corner on the market for 
patient success and lifelong cures more than the medical device tax 
elimination.
  Hoosiers in my State are proud to be leaders in medical innovation, 
with more than 300 medical device manufacturers in my State alone 
supporting nearly 55,000 good-paying jobs. However, after this tax took 
effect, the industry lost nearly 30,000 of those jobs nationwide from 
2012 to 2015, according to the Commerce Department data.
  Congress has temporarily suspended this job-killing tax since 2016, 
and this expires in January. Here we are at a crux that we have never 
faced before. We are 3 months away. Congress needs to act today, now, 
not for me, for all of us on this floor.
  These folks who live and die by medical devices do not declare 
themselves as being Republicans, Democrats, or independents. They are 
Americans in need of our help, and they need it now.
  Medical devices have literally changed the way we think about 
healthcare. In all of our districts, patients undergo less invasive 
procedures, which leads to shorter hospital stays. New technologies 
diagnose illnesses earlier, lowering the impact of care on a person's 
daily life. Yet, all these notable gains will be wiped out if the 
medical device tax elimination repeal is not carried through here 
today. It will divert millions of dollars that could have been spent on 
critical investments in research and development of cures and 
therapies.

                              {time}  1315

  There is huge bipartisan support for this bill. Unlike very few other 
bills in this place, it is bipartisan because we have all recognized at 
one time or another that our constituents need our help and we are 
doing something to help them.
  By defeating the previous question, we can do that. We can unleash 
the potential of the medical device technology that could be developing 
better treatments, managing chronic care, and improving the quality of 
life for people in all of our districts.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous 
question.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I can't say it any better than my friend from Oklahoma 
said it. He supports the goal of the underlying bill. He is going to 
oppose this rule because his ideas were not even heard, not that his 
ideas weren't put into the language, but that he was not even allowed a 
chance to debate his ideas.
  I will say it again: Only two Republican ideas were made in order for 
consideration in this rule, and more amendments were given to 
individual members of the Democratic Party than the entire Republican 
Party combined. That is not the way we ought to be doing things. We 
ought to have a full airing of issues and concerns.
  You heard it from the gentleman from Oklahoma, vote ``no'' on the 
rule. But also vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, you heard from my friend from Indiana. We have an 
opportunity in a bipartisan way to solve a nationwide problem by 
eliminating the medical device tax. Everybody from the far left to the 
far right knows it; from the east, to the west, to the north, to the 
south. We can do this together.
  If we have to do this closed rule that eliminates the diversity of 
ideas in this institution, then let's at least do it with the medical 
device tax language included.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Add that language. If we can't 
defeat the previous question, I am going to have to ask my colleagues 
to defeat the rule and see if we can't come back with a process that 
opens up this bill to more voices; not just from across the parties, 
but from across the country.
  We can do better than this. My colleagues know it, as do I.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  It is always a pleasure to be down here or on the Rules Committee 
with my friend from Georgia. I appreciate what we agree with, and I 
appreciate the passion that the gentleman brings when he disagrees with 
us.
  I do want to say, as we fight for these things, there was a famous 
Frenchman who President Reagan used to quote, the quote was: ``Don't 
let the perfect be the enemy of the good.''
  So somewhere in there, in this process I think we try to find the 
best product we can. I believe what we have in front of us is that 
product. And I do also think and commit to this that we can always do 
better.
  Mr. Speaker, a vote for this rule and this bill is a vote to promote 
American-made jobs, goods, and the American economy.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.
  The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. Woodall is as 
follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 695

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     bill (H.R. 2207) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to repeal the excise tax on medical devices. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any 
     amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 2207.

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and 
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. WOODALL. Mr. 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
  Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 198, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 615]

                               YEAS--226

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     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)
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     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
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     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
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks

[[Page H8844]]


     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     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
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--198

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     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)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Craig
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     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
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Phillips
     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
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Gabbard
     Omar
     Schiff
     Serrano
     Timmons
     Yoho

                              {time}  1348

  Messrs. KEVIN HERN of Oklahoma, WITTMAN, SPANO, BILIRAKIS, and Ms. 
HERRERA BEUTLER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. TED LIEU of California, Ms. MENG, Mr. CLEAVER, and Ms. PORTER 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea'' on rollcall No. 615.
  Stated against:
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I voted electronically but it did not 
register. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 
No. 615.
  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. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 198, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 616]

                               YEAS--228

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     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
     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
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     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
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     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
     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
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--198

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     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)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     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
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Porter
     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
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     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

[[Page H8845]]


  


                             NOT VOTING--4

     Gabbard
     Omar
     Serrano
     Timmons

                              {time}  1404

  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.

                          ____________________