[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 20077-20088]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  0915
  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 644, TRADE 
   FACILITATION AND TRADE ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2015, AND PROVIDING FOR 
  CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 2250, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 560 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 560

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 644) to reauthorize trade facilitation and trade 
     enforcement functions and activities, and for other purposes. 
     All points of order against the conference report and against 
     its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the conference report to its adoption without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit if applicable.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2250) 
     making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other 
     purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto, and to consider 
     in the House, without intervention of any point of order, a 
     single motion offered by the chair of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or his designee that the House concur in the 
     Senate amendments. The Senate amendments and the motion shall 
     be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to its adoption without intervening motion or demand 
     for division of the question.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The gentleman from Oklahoma is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), my 
friend, 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. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported 
a rule for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 
644, the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, and the 
Senate amendments to H.R. 2250, a continuing resolution which runs 
through December 16, 2015.
  The resolution provides a standard conference report rule for 
consideration of H.R. 644, with 1 hour of debate divided pursuant to 
clause 8(d) of rule XXII.
  In addition, the rule makes in order a motion from the chair of the 
Committee on Appropriations to concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 
2250, with 60 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
chair and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations on the 
motion. In addition, the rule provides for one motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, first, this resolution allows for consideration of the 
conference report on the Customs bill. I think it is important to put 
the work of this House in perspective. As Speaker Ryan noted yesterday, 
in the entirety of the last Congress, only three conference reports 
became law. However, with the passage of this conference report, this 
Congress will have passed three conference reports in 10 days. I am 
pleased that Speaker Ryan's commitment to regular order is already 
bearing fruit.
  This conference report is a good product. One provision especially 
important to me is the establishment of new tools for Customs and 
Border Protection, the CBP, to effectively act against the evasion of 
antidumping and countervailing duties. I was first introduced to this 
issue in 2009, when the Chinese dumped literally tens of thousands of 
tires on the U.S. market, leading to devastating job losses at tire 
factories across America. I helped to lead the charge at that time to 
ensure that the Department of Commerce would impose antidumping and 
countervailing duties. The ENFORCE Act language included in the 
conference report provides a mechanism and incentive for the CBP to 
properly investigate and apply appropriate duties to ensure that U.S. 
companies can compete on a level playing field.
  In addition, I am encouraged that the conference report includes 
language which permanently bans States and localities from imposing a 
tax on Internet access. Initially enacted in 1998, this prohibition has 
enabled greater access to Internet services and information. It is 
estimated that if Congress fails to continue the ban on taxes on 
Internet access, consumers could end up paying more than $16.4 billion 
annually. This moratorium has been law since 1998 on a temporary basis, 
and I am pleased this conference report reflects our intention to make 
it permanent.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition to the Customs measure, this legislation 
contains a 5-day continuing resolution to allow the Appropriations 
Committee to continue its work towards an omnibus appropriations 
measure. It is simple, straightforward, and extends funding for all 
government agencies through December 16, 2015, at current funding 
levels.
  I urge all Members to support this short-term CR, which will allow 
the Appropriations Committee the time to conclude negotiations on a 
full-year funding measure with its Senate counterparts and the White 
House. I am encouraged by the hard work of Chairman Rogers and Ranking 
Member Lowey, whose leadership on this cannot be overstated.
  One of the preeminent responsibilities we are tasked with, as Members 
of Congress, is to ensure that government continues to function. While 
a CR is not the ideal vehicle, the alternative of a government shutdown 
is not what we have been sent to Washington to accomplish. Mr. Speaker, 
I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition--I might add, reluctant 
opposition--to the rule on two important bills that really shouldn't be 
controversial: the Senate amendments to H.R. 2250--that is a short-term 
continuing resolution. It shouldn't be necessary. This body should have 
acted, but given that the body has not passed through regular order an 
appropriations process to keep government open, that bill is 
necessary--and the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 
2015.
  H.R. 644, which is often called the Customs bill, is a bill that 
needs to pass in some form. I want to see it pass. I have voted for it 
to go to conference. It has a lot of provisions that are extremely 
important to many Members, to our economy, and to even Americans 
traveling casually overseas. It increases, finally, the amount of items 
they can buy as gifts for their friends and then bring back without 
having to pay duties. But looking at the version that we are 
considering today under this rule, which does not allow amendments, I 
think the body would be better taking individual votes on some of the 
provisions.
  There is a lot of good in this bill, but there is also a blatant 
attack on climate science, on environmental protection, and, really, 
items that serve no purpose in a bill written to facilitate trade. They 
even put a separate item preventing Internet sales tax, which I support 
the bill separately, and somehow this wound up in the Customs bill, a 
totally unrelated measure from a different committee that wound up in 
this bill at the last minute, this Christmas-tree bill. It wasn't in 
the House or the

[[Page 20078]]

Senate version before. I think we do need to give Members a chance to 
be on the record to approve or not approve these items individually, 
and I think that would be the open process that this Speaker has 
committed to.
  The second item under this rule, the Senate amendments to H.R. 2250, 
our short-term continuing resolution, is straightforward and is 
necessary as we near the shutdown of government, which would otherwise 
occur December 11. Today would be the last day that we would fund 
government, so, of course, we have to act. You don't hear objection 
about that. The only objection I hear is: Why does this Congress always 
wait until the eleventh hour to pass these kinds of bills? It just 
doesn't make any sense. You don't wait until the day before government 
shuts down to say: Okay. We will give ourselves a 5-day reprieve.
  Are we even going to be able to complete the omnibus or continuing 
resolution in those 5 days? I don't know. Are we going to be back here 
next Wednesday doing another 3-day or 5-day CR?
  There is no particular reason that we are doing this, nothing new. No 
new information about how to better construct funding bills comes to us 
next week or the week after than we had last week or 2 weeks ago. I 
don't understand why we didn't do these bills last month. We passed the 
budget bills. We agreed on the overall dollar figures about a month 
ago. That is one of the hardest things about figuring out the 
appropriations bills and spending is what levels are you going to 
spend. We agreed on that. The House, the Senate, and the President 
agreed. So that is not even being discussed. Why didn't we do it within 
a week of that and just be done with it? It makes no sense.
  So this bill would make December 16 the new deadline to finish 
Congress' appropriations work and keep government open, and I do think 
that Members and the public are anxious for us to complete our work. It 
is also critical that we get a good product.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, the majority, the Republicans, have previously 
shown this country their willingness to go into a shutdown, so I hope 
that we take this new 5-day period to avoid a shutdown permanently 
rather than just to do another 3 or 5 days again and again and again.
  Why aren't we sending a bill on appropriations to the President 
today? From my point of view, it seems like it is nothing more than 
partisan politics that is keeping it from getting done. I think the 
votes are here--they have been here, were here a month ago, and were 
here a week ago--for a commonsense bill that meets the budget that we 
have already agreed on, that doesn't have completely unrelated 
Christmas-tree policy riders that were put together in smoke-filled 
rooms rather than the open process that the new Speaker has committed 
to. And it is a real opportunity for this body to live up to that 
promise and put together an appropriations bill that passes 
overwhelmingly, which I think can absolutely be done.
  Nearly every single member of the Democratic Caucus has said no 
divisive or controversial riders. The appropriations bills are not a 
place for them. You don't bring government to the brink of a shutdown 
over policy disagreements. You don't say: ``Look, unless we don't fund 
Planned Parenthood, we are shutting down government. Look, unless you 
don't ban the EPA from keeping our air clean, we are going to shut down 
government.'' You can have those debates and you can have those 
discussions, but it is not appropriate to do that with a threat of 
shutting down government.
  Didn't the Republicans recently sign some sort of pledge to have no 
extraneous or legislation or must-pass bills? Well, what about taking 
on the President's attempt to protect clean air standards? If 
Republicans want it, then debate it and pass it. If you want to defund 
Planned Parenthood, then debate it and pass it, but not in a last-
minute, closed package with a threat of closing government.
  Compromise is what we did on the highway bill to pass a long-term 
authorization. It worked great. It didn't have what every single Member 
wanted, and we had to make tough compromises, but we can live with it. 
It passed overwhelmingly. Compromise is what we took yesterday when I 
got to go to the White House to see the Every Student Succeeds Act 
signed, the new Federal education law that replaces No Child Left 
Behind. It passed overwhelmingly in its final form in both the House 
and the Senate. Now, a compromise is not seeing how many partisan 
stocking stuffers you can jam into a must-pass bill before we head home 
for the holidays.
  Moving to the Customs enforcement bill, H.R. 644, it is, for the most 
part, a very positive bill. The Customs bill is about giving the 
administration the tools they need to make sure we are fighting a fair 
fight when it comes to trade and to updating and eliminating unintended 
consequences of other trade laws. I heard Ranking Member Levin testify 
in the Rules Committee yesterday that the key to enforcement on trade 
issues was the willingness of the administration to act, and the final 
step of enforcing our existing and future trade agreements will always 
fall to the executive branch. But they can't fight those fights without 
the right tools in the toolbox. That is what the Customs bill does, and 
this bipartisan bill has a lot of very high-quality elements that we 
will likely send to the administration before the holidays.
  It has the full ENFORCE Act, which would require immediate action to 
investigate and address trade cheats and take measures to stop those 
who continually attempt to circumvent the penalties already imposed on 
them. It establishes and funds the Interagency Trade Enforcement 
Center, which helps agencies find trade cheats and those who engage in 
illegal dumping that risk putting Americans out of work. It establishes 
the Trade Enforcement Fund, which would provide critical and dedicated 
resources to enforce our trade agreements, and it would help with 
capacity building, an important issue which would help our current and 
future trading partners implement labor and environmental standards 
that we push them towards in a real way.
  The bill also contains important language on ending the importation 
of goods made from child or forced labor, which is yet another step we 
are taking towards ending this abominable practice on a global scale. 
It also includes bipartisan language which gives the executive branch 
new tools in evaluating and consulting with partner countries who may 
be manipulating their currency.
  Mr. Speaker, if we want to be serious with enforcing our trade 
agreements, then the enforcement provisions in this bill are a major 
step forward. We may still have to push this Executive when we feel 
they aren't using these tools, but having these tools available is a 
critical step.
  The Customs bill also gives a leg up to American small business. The 
bill makes commerce at the border more efficient. It modernizes the 
operation of Customs and Border Patrol; and something that I fought for 
for many years, it raises the de minimis threshold from $200 to $800, 
which, again, is important to all Americans who travel overseas. Being 
able to have smaller items cross our border duty-free is a major win 
for small businesses and consumers, especially in the e-commerce space 
on the commercial side, but also for casual tourists who travel 
overseas.
  What that means is, when you are reentering this country, if you ever 
have to fill out one of those forms if you are coming back from Mexico 
or Canada or Europe, the de minimis threshold was $200, and technically 
you are responsible for a duty above that. This finally raises it. It 
hasn't been adjusted for inflation for decades. This raises it to $800, 
so you can truly bring back gifts for your friends and family. This is 
important for individuals, and it is important for businesses.
  The bill makes important technical corrections that are important to 
companies in my district, like adjusting tariff lines for outdoor wear 
and footwear.

                              {time}  0930

  I am also very excited to say, as the cochair of the Nepal Caucus, 
that the

[[Page 20079]]

bill includes the Nepal Trade Preferences Act, a very important 
provision that is a tangible benefit for Nepal's recovering economic 
market. That is simply the right thing to do. As many here know, Nepal 
suffered a devastating earthquake on April 25, 2015. Over 9,000 people 
were killed; 23,000 were injured. The earthquake triggered a series of 
avalanches on Mt. Everest where 19 people, including one of my 
constituents, were killed in what was the deadliest day in Mt. Everest 
history.
  The country has begun the urgent process of rebuilding. Despite the 
trying circumstances, Nepal has remained resilient. On December 20, I 
am proud to say, the democratically elected constituent assembly 
announced the passage of a new democratic constitution, a remarkable 
chapter for a country that, until recently, had been mired in civil war 
and strife.
  I am honored to join Representative Crenshaw, my cochair on the U.S. 
Nepal Caucus, in introducing the Nepal Trade Preferences Act, which 
gives preferential treatment to textile, leather, and apparel products 
made in Nepal. And the bill facilitates capacity building to help 
expand the Nepali export market.
  I am very grateful for the hard work of my colleague from Florida 
(Mr. Crenshaw), and the simultaneous effort that has been taking place 
in the Senate under the leadership of Senator Feinstein.
  Nepal is a very important and strategic ally between global powers, 
India and China. Cooperation with America to help build capacity and 
build the Nepali economy and stability is a critical foreign policy 
priority, in addition to being an economic benefit to the American 
people.
  I believe trade can be a mechanism for poverty reduction worldwide. I 
am heartened to see that this act, which attempts to do that, is 
included in the Customs bill.
  With all these great things, why would anybody oppose this bill? 
Unfortunately, like anything, it is not that easy. I joined my 
Democratic colleagues in voting against the Customs bill when it was on 
the House floor last summer. Despite knowing that it needed to get 
done, I was simply unable to vote for a bill that contained extraneous, 
unnecessary attacks on climate science, on environmental protections, 
and on immigrants.
  These are some of the things that needed to be taken out in the 
conference committee. They should have been taken out in the conference 
committee. If they were, I would be proudly 100 percent supporting this 
bill. If I could, in an open process, I would be amending the bill 
today to take them out, so that this bill could enjoy broad Democratic 
support.
  The only positive thing I can say is that, emerging from conference, 
this bill is less bad than it was. Included in the underlying report is 
a renegotiated provision on greenhouse gas emissions and the role in 
international trade agreements that certainly is not as bad as the 
version that originally passed the House and, many argue, would not 
have any significant legally constraining role on agreements negotiated 
by the chief executive.
  The House negotiated an objective that would have prohibited the USTR 
from pursuing trade agreements that obligate United States law or 
regulation towards global warming and climate change was stripped. It 
was replaced with an equally nontopical, but somewhat convoluted, 
provision that is a little difficult to understand.
  We use new language to bar trade agreements from including 
obligations to alter U.S. law or regulations surrounding greenhouse gas 
emissions.
  To clarify, international trade policy will not be the stage on which 
the United States establishes and implements strong and thoughtful 
climate change policy. That is what Congress is for, that is what our 
States are for, that is what our local governments are for. That must 
be done. I think we all agree that won't be done through trade 
agreements.
  In that sense, the language was only added to speak to a deeply held 
fear by my Republican Party colleagues to even acknowledge that climate 
change exists. To my colleagues on the other side, I would say, this is 
simply not the place for that kind of ideological statement.
  Further, the language contradicts itself by explicitly allowing the 
USTR to seek provisions, including those related to global warming and 
climate change, if doing so would fulfill another negotiating 
objective.
  So, we bar negotiators from discussing environmental policy 
objectives and then flip, allowing them to do so if it meets another 
objective.
  Not only is this language unnecessary, it is a messy, convoluted, 
contradictory-type of compromise that nobody really even knows what it 
would mean, and is really rife for lawyers on both sides to be debating 
it for years or decades.
  The entire world is in Paris right now talking about specifics on 
fighting climate change. And here we are today, with the only political 
party in the developed world that still questions the existence of 
climate change in their very platform, attaching this ridiculous 
provision to an unrelated Customs bill, embarrassing our own 
negotiators while they are in Paris.
  We get it: you don't agree with the rest of the world on this, you 
don't agree with scientists on this, you don't agree with the majority 
of Americans on that. We get that. Next year, feel free to pass a 
resolution that says, we don't believe in climate change, if that is 
what you want to do. But put it on your letterhead; don't put it into 
an unrelated Customs bill that is actually important for our economy 
and for the American people. Stop trying to muddle good bipartisan 
bills with this sort of divisive, unscientific language that, frankly, 
not only threatens the environment, but also embarrasses our country. 
These kinds of provisions have no place in bills like the Customs bill 
and should have been taken out in the process.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, I want to begin by agreeing with my friend on the other side 
on a number of areas. I, too, have concerns about the process by which 
we operate, and would have preferred a number of these items to come, 
as my friend suggests, separately. But the reality is, of course, we 
are late in the year and late in the session, we have got significant 
work to do, and this, I think, is the best way to proceed.
  It is worth noting that the conference report itself is a compromise. 
The Democrats and Republicans were involved in putting that together, 
and, indeed, this entire bill has considerable Democratic support, as 
we work toward a larger compromise on the omnibus itself.
  It is also worth noting why we ended up in this situation. Frankly, 
the Appropriations Committee in this House accomplished its work--all 
of its work--for the first time in a long time early this year. All 12 
legislative bills passed through the Appropriations Committee, six of 
them across this floor. To suggest that anything has been done in the 
dark or in the back room, frankly, ignores that fact.
  What happened was the United States Senate chose not to allow any 
appropriations bills to come to the floor. They didn't do that as a 
body. My friends on the other side of the aisle in the Senate--the 
Democrats--chose not to allow any bills to come to the floor. To be 
fair to them, they also completed every appropriations bill through the 
full committee. That is the first time that has happened in many, many 
years in the United States Senate.
  But, our friends, until we got this larger agreement, the budget 
agreement, which I was happy to vote for, and I know my friend on the 
other side also voted for, until we reached that point, the 
appropriations process in the other body didn't happen. At some point, 
that affects what is going on over here. If they are not moving bills, 
we stop moving bills because it is sort of a waste of time to do that. 
If you have got complaints, you should talk to your colleagues in the 
other body on your side of the aisle, and tell them hopefully next year 
they won't try to keep bills from moving to the floor in

[[Page 20080]]

a normal way. Again, I am proud that this body moved all 12 bills 
through the Appropriations Committee.
  I also want to make a couple of other points in terms of where we are 
now in trying to reach an omnibus. This puts me a little bit, again, at 
odds with my friend. I don't think that is a closed process. Frankly, 
it is a pretty normal process. There are representatives involved in 
these negotiations, both Democratic and Republican, and from the 
administration. They are working very hard, in good faith, to try and 
do something that is extremely difficult. Writing a $1.1 trillion 
omnibus bill takes a lot of time, and there are multiple items to be 
negotiated. I think both sides are negotiating in good faith in this 
legislative body, and I think the administration is participating in 
good faith.
  My friend and I will also disagree that riders on appropriations 
bills, as they are called, is somehow unusual. They certainly, when 
they were in the majority, had lots of riders on appropriations bills. 
It is just not an unusual thing. There is, obviously, give-and-take on 
these things. But Congress, exercising the power of the purse, is a 
perfectly appropriate constitutional tool to use.
  In this case, where we end up will, indeed, be a compromise. The 
omnibus bill cannot pass either Chamber, and certainly has to be signed 
by the President of the United States. A Republican Congress, our 
friends with the appropriate tools and votes that they have, the 
President of the United States, who has the ultimate veto pen, all of 
these parties will have to be placated. Again, that negotiation is long 
and complex. We are making good progress. All parties are represented 
there.
  Eventually, a bill will be presented to this body, hopefully, in the 
next few days. I share my friend's concern. I would prefer not to be 
here. But if we have to be here next week and have two or three more 
days to have the process work out, so be it.
  The lessons I think we ought to draw from this, and that we have a 
chance to implement next year, are let's do a normal process. We 
already have an agreement now for next year's spending numbers. That is 
a step in the right direction, and, actually, says a lot of good things 
about all parties and all concerned that they were able to come to this 
larger agreement earlier this year.
  We have no excuse, in my view, not to move all 12 bills across the 
floor in regular order under an open rule so every Member can come down 
here and participate. I know that that is certainly the goal of 
Chairman Rogers, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I know 
that is the goal of his ranking member, the distinguished gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  I think the hard work this year has set us up both for a fruitful 
compromise here in the waning days of the calendar year in the 
legislative session, and has actually laid the foundation for something 
we have not seen around here in a long time: regular order, next year. 
In the course of that regular order, all of us will be forced to 
compromise.
  We still live in a divided government: a Republican Congress and a 
Democratic President. We still operate in a system of checks and 
balances that our Constitutional forebearers set up over 230 years ago. 
That system has served us pretty well over the course of our history. I 
think it will continue to. And it will continue to demand compromise. 
We have seen a little bit more of that lately. I know my friend has his 
concerns, some of which, again, I share.
  I am pretty proud of a Congress that has: number one, produced the 
first unitary budget since 2001, where the Senate and the House agree 
that, for the first time since 2006, has moved all appropriations bills 
through the Appropriations Committee of both Chambers; that, actually, 
in recent days and weeks, passed landmark legislation, as my friend 
referred to, the Reauthorization of Higher Education Act, where I know 
he played a role in that; the highway bill that was recently passed; 
this conference report, which I know my friend has some concerns with, 
but, in fairness, speaks well of him, and pointed out a lot of things 
that he liked in this conference report.
  If we sit here and wait to pass things where we all get 100 percent 
of what we want, nothing will ever pass the United States Congress. 
Certainly, in a bill this large, when we reach the omnibus, that is 
going to call for many compromises. This bill before us has called for 
many compromises. But people have found a way to work in good faith.
  My friend is perfectly in order to oppose the rule. That is a pretty 
normal position for each side to take, minority and majority. I never 
have any problem with that. I think we will pass the rule. I hope he 
looks at the entire bill: the funding of the government and the Customs 
Act, where he had some concerns, but also had many things to point to 
that he thought were appropriate and good; and the Internet tax 
prevention that we now make permanent, where I know my friend has 
worked very hard for many years to do that.
  And, yes, there will be some things in this bill that he doesn't 
like. There are some things in this bill that I don't like. But I think 
if you look at the merits of it, the permanent end of taxes on the 
Internet, the Customs legislation that my friend very ably pointed out 
has many good provisions; finally, the essential operation of 
government for the next few days, so people negotiating in good faith 
for both my friend's party and my party and from the administration can 
actually arrive at a deal. I think there is a lot of merit in the 
underlying legislation.
  I would just ask that we be realistic. Again, my friend is perfectly 
within his rights to oppose both these measures, the rule and the final 
bill. I certainly understand his concern about the rule. If the roles 
were reversed, my concerns would probably be similar. I hope he looks 
to the underlying legislation when that vote comes and says, there are 
a lot of good things here.
  There is a lot of give-and-take by both sides. There is real 
compromise. We have done a lot of that in the last few weeks under 
Speaker Ryan. I think we have the opportunity to do more next year. 
Let's pass the rule, pass the underlying legislation; get to finishing 
our business in the next few days; hopefully give the American people 
what they deserve: some peace, quiet, and certainty in the Christmas 
season; and then come back here next year with an opportunity to build 
on this and do some tremendous things in a bipartisan way. That is what 
I intend to work for. I know that is what my friend will be working 
for.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a senior member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
  I am here to speak in support of the Customs bill that we will be 
facing later today. It represents significant progress over the version 
from earlier this summer that I opposed. Part of this progress is due 
to strong bipartisan support from the Senate and bipartisan give-and-
take with some of my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee.
  I appreciate having worked with then-Chair Ryan and Chairman Brady to 
see some of these elements improve. I think it is important to 
recognize that the bill before us is substantially better. I know there 
are concerns by some of my friends about currency manipulation, which I 
share, and we have been pushing for and secured stronger provisions.
  In the Customs bill, we have elements that represent the give-and-
take of a legislative process, working with the administration; and the 
provisions, while no one would suggest they are perfect, are 
substantially better than the situation we have right now. We will be 
better off with the currency provisions in the Customs bill.
  It contains many provisions that I fought for that are important to 
my constituents--businesses in the Pacific Northwest--dealing with 
unfair and outmoded tariff provisions, dealing

[[Page 20081]]

with things like performance outerwear, that I know I share with my 
friend from Colorado. These are important both in terms of businesses 
that we represent and constituents that we represent who value that 
equipment--the shoes, the outdoor apparel--and making it more 
affordable.
  Beyond the elements of making sure that the Customs system works more 
appropriately, there are important things that I think all of us can 
point to and be enthusiastic about. Both speakers have mentioned the 
end of the importation of products that are made by child and forced 
labor. There are strong provisions here to help us keep that out of the 
stream of commerce.
  My friend from Oklahoma referenced the ENFORCE Act, and there have 
been problems--tires, solar panels--up in my area. We have had people 
cheat and do so with impunity. Incorporating the provisions of the 
ENFORCE Act gives us the tools to go after the cheaters, to make them 
pay, and to protect American companies and their employees.
  It permanently establishes the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center 
to centralize and enforce trade enforcement. This is an area that I 
have been working on throughout this process. In the Ways and Means 
Committee, I introduced the STRONGER Act with my friend and former 
fellow Northwesterner, Senator Maria Cantwell from Washington, to deal 
with ways to better enforce our agreements.
  Today trade agreements are complex and trade enforcement takes a long 
period of time. They are expensive. Frankly, we are not equipped as 
well as we should be to do the job of protecting Americans by enforcing 
and implementing these agreements.
  This legislation includes the trust fund for enforcement and in-
country capacity building. It provides for up to $30 million a year. It 
may not seem like much when we are talking about hundreds of billions 
of dollars in the Federal Government, but when you consider that the 
budget of the United States Trade Representative is less than $60 
million to do all of the things with which they are charged, being able 
to have a $30 million a year enforcement fund is a very significant 
advancement.
  Now, I am mindful of the extraneous climate provisions. I think they 
are unfortunate and should have been left out. I think my Republican 
friends in the future are going to be embarrassed by doing things like 
this, particularly when the rest of the world is in Paris, working to 
try and help deal with the crisis that is carbon pollution and climate 
change.
  As a practical matter, again, the result of working with the 
administration and people in the Senate, the provision that is stuck in 
the bill, yes, is confusing, but it is much better than it was in June, 
and I am convinced it doesn't change the status quo at all, nor 
prohibit other efforts in different forums, such as Paris.
  The optics are bad for my Republican friends, I think, and I do 
believe that they will rue the day for doing things like this. But, as 
a practical matter, we are not going to solve our climate problems 
through international trade. This doesn't change that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Because of the composition of the Senate and 
Republican opposition, we couldn't pass those things when we were in 
charge. So we are going to do it through other mechanisms. This Customs 
bill does not prevent that. I strongly urge my colleagues' favorable 
consideration.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, I want to thank my good friend from Oregon for coming 
to the floor and for, frankly, more ably explaining the Customs portion 
of this legislation than I could.
  I want to commend him and his colleagues for working in a bipartisan 
fashion to improve a bill that had passed earlier this year in ways 
that I think broadly make it more acceptable to a larger percentage in 
this body. He is to be commended for that. So are his colleagues on 
that committee on both sides of the aisle. So is the administration, 
which I know has been heavily involved in these deliberations.
  I think my friend makes an excellent argument for the passage of the 
underlying legislation. When you combine that with a permanent 
prohibition on Internet taxation--something I assume my friend also 
supports--and the necessary continuing resolution to give us a few more 
days to negotiate a bipartisan omnibus spending bill that, frankly, 
both parties will need to contribute votes toward and that the 
administration ultimately will have the prerogative of signing, I take 
these to be hopeful signs.
  With some of the things that have happened in the last few weeks on a 
bipartisan transportation bill and on a bipartisan education bill and 
with what I am convinced is essentially a bipartisan conference report 
here today and with what will be a bipartisan omnibus bill, it sounds 
to me like significant progress.
  It is something that leaders on both sides of the aisle can take some 
pride in as long as we get it done, hopefully, in a timely way next 
week and then come back here and build on this progress for all of next 
year, when we can move under regular order.
  Again, I thank my friend for his hard work on the Customs portion of 
this. I also thank him for giving what I thought was a very thoughtful, 
constitutional lesson in give-and-take.
  There are some things that we might all like to achieve, but that are 
just simply not possible, given the distribution of political power, 
the checks and balances in our system, and the fact that people do 
have, indeed, differing opinions and perspectives.
  But the fact that we have gotten to this point I think demonstrates 
we can produce a good product even within a complex constitutional 
system, with a rather polarized political environment, and given the 
hard realities of divided government. I am pleased we have made the 
progress that we have made, and I thank my friend for his participation 
in that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the gentleman from Colorado and let me 
thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for the thoughtful discussion and for 
the tone in which it is offered.
  Mr. Speaker, I think all of us certainly are interested in coming to 
a place next week that embraces, really, the values of America and all 
of our concerns, and, obviously, riders that are toxic are obstacles we 
need to continue to discuss.
  In my district, I have senior citizens with blue tarps on the tops of 
their homes, blue tarps that have been there since the terrible 
Hurricane Ike. Obviously, we need the Housing and Urban Development to 
have funding that not only addresses affordable housing, but senior 
housing repair.
  It comes down through community development. In the manner in which 
we are going through this, we are looking for that kind of funding to 
make sure that the plus-up of $80 billion that came about through the 
budget agreement gets evenly distributed, if you will. What happens is 
that, with the extenders of tax provisions that are unpaid for, the 
blue tarps in my district continue to exist. Seniors have roofs that 
are falling in.
  I think that is an important issue at which many of us will be 
looking this weekend, and we will be looking to the appropriators to do 
what is right by the American people.
  We wrote a letter regarding the Minority HIV/AIDS Program, which was 
gutted out. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you that HIV/AIDS is resurging 
among young people and among minorities. This is no time to zero out 
that funding.
  As we go through this process, we are asking the question whether you 
are putting in toxic riders, but are not focusing on funding that is 
needed. The Thomas Street Clinic in my district needs the minority HIV 
funding.
  I know that my good friends Mr. Polis and Mr. Cole are certainly 
interested in making sure that transportation funding matches the 
funding

[[Page 20082]]

that came about through the bill. Then, certainly, I hope that, as I 
listen to the calm discussion by Mr. Polis, we can find a way to 
eliminate the prohibition from the Centers for Disease Control to not 
do their work.
  Why are we preventing them from discerning the impact of gun violence 
on suicide? of the impact of gun violence on young people who are 
committing suicide? We have done research on drunk driving. We have 
done research on cancer. We have done research on diabetes. We have 
done research to move the country forward in a healthy manner. Why are 
we blocking the CDC from assessing what the impact is from gun 
violence?
  As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I now understand that the 
Internet Tax Freedom Act is in this legislation and it is in this 
legislation permanently. There was no hearing. I remember this bill on 
the floor of the House in June.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I have a number of letters to include 
for the Record. One is from Tom McGee, the President and CEO of the 
International Council of Shopping Centers. One is from the NRF. One is 
from the AFL-CIO.

                                                December 10, 2015.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 70,000 members of the 
     International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), I am 
     writing to urge you to oppose the conference report on H.R. 
     644, Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act, which 
     contains a non-germane provision permanently extending the 
     Internet Tax Freedom Act (PITFA). This is considered a key 
     vote for ICSC.
       Because PITFA was included without being paired with long 
     awaited remote sales tax collection legislation, the added 
     fiscal pressure being put on states and local governments 
     will result in less funds for first responders and 
     infrastructure and additional pressure to increase other 
     state and local taxes such as sales or property taxes. This 
     will truly add insult to injury for thousands of local 
     businesses across the country.
       As an organization, ICSC supports PITFA but strongly 
     believes that a permanent restriction on states' ability to 
     tax telecommunications services should absolutely be linked 
     with the restoration of states' rights to collect sales taxes 
     that are already owed in 45 states today. It is not only a 
     missed opportunity to pursue good policy, but the manner in 
     which this provision is being advanced certainly represents a 
     departure from regular order.
       After more than 20 years, close to 40 hearings and a 
     successful bipartisan vote in the Senate, it is time for 
     Congress to do the right thing and update sales tax 
     collection policy to reflect the 21st century marketplace. 
     The shopping center industry has sales that represent 15% of 
     U.S. GDP, employs 1 out of every 11 Americans and generates 
     $141 billion in sales tax revenue. Our industry touches 
     people's lives every day and is essential to the economic, 
     civic and social vibrancy of every community. We urge you to 
     send an important message on state tax policy and oppose H.R. 
     644. Please vote NO when the Trade Facilitation and Trade 
     Enforcement Act Conference report is voted on later this 
     week.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Tom McGee,
     President & CEO.
                                  ____



                                   National Retail Federation,

                                Washington, DC, December 10, 2015.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader McConnell and Speaker Ryan: On behalf 
     of the National Retail Federation (NRF), I would like to take 
     this opportunity to share our views on the Conference Report 
     to the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 
     (HR 644). NRF is concerned with the last-minute inclusion of 
     the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act (PITFA) as part of the 
     Conference Report, without also including legislation to 
     provide parity in sales tax treatment of internet sales with 
     sales in brick and mortar stores, like H.R. 2775, The Remote 
     Transactions Parity Act.
       NRF has long supported the efforts to pass a Customs 
     Reauthorization bill, especially those provisions focused on 
     trade facilitation. We believe the Conference Report includes 
     provisions to help facilitate and streamline the Customs 
     process. While we strongly support enforcement of U.S. trade 
     laws, we remain concerned with the final enforcement language 
     and the impact it will have on retailers and other downstream 
     consumers.
       Unfortunately we are extremely concerned about the 
     inclusion of the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act (PITFA) 
     in the final conference report. Retailers have long believed 
     that it is appropriate to eliminate the sales tax 
     discrimination for brick and mortar stores as part of 
     Congressional consideration of PITFA. This past Thanksgiving 
     week-end was the first time that electronic sales surpassed 
     brick and mortar sales in that key metric for retail sales. 
     As more and more Main Street retailers close their doors 
     because they cannot compete, it is time for Congress to 
     remove the sales tax advantage for internet sellers that is 
     harming our communities. We need a level playing field so 
     retailers can compete without the government advantaging one 
     sector of the industry over another.
       NRF is the world's largest retail trade association, 
     representing discount and department stores, home goods and 
     specialty stores, Main Street merchants, grocers, 
     wholesalers, chain restaurants and Internet retailers from 
     the United States and more than 45 countries. Retail is the 
     nation's largest private sector employer, supporting one in 
     four U.S. jobs--42 million working Americans. Contributing 
     $2.6 trillion to annual GDP, retail is a daily barometer for 
     the nation's economy.
       We urge you to remove language on PITFA from the final 
     conference report, unless it is accompanied by sales tax 
     fairness.
           Sincerely,

                                                David French, 

                                            Senior Vice President,
     Government Relations.
                                  ____

         American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial 
           Organizations,
                                                December 10, 2015.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I write to 
     urge you to oppose the conference report on H.R. 644, the 
     Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (Customs 
     Bill).
       The Customs Bill, which when it emerged from the Senate had 
     bipartisan support and included provisions supported by both 
     labor and industry, was loaded up in the House with numerous 
     controversial and partisan provisions that weakened or 
     unacceptably altered it and would make it more difficult to 
     negotiate trade agreements that are good for workers and the 
     environment. Unfortunately, numerous of these unacceptable 
     provisions remain in the bill that will be voted upon.
       Stripped from the final bill is a critical bipartisan 
     currency provision that would have made clear the U.S. can 
     treat currency manipulation as a countervailable subsidy. The 
     remaining currency provisions are a poor substitute, simply 
     calling for ``engagement'' and with so-called 
     ``consequences'' that simply won't work--including the 
     possible exclusion from OPIC funding, something the worst 
     currency manipulators (including China and Japan) don't 
     receive anyway.
       The conferenced Customs Bill also contains language that 
     U.S. free trade agreements (FTAs) must not include 
     obligations regarding greenhouse gas emissions. This will 
     prevent the United States from making meaningful commitments 
     on climate policy. It is incomprehensible how a 21st century 
     trade agenda would ignore the reality of important climate 
     issues.
       Also included in the bill is language weakening the 
     Menendez trafficking amendment, which barred Tier 3 
     trafficking nations from joining U.S. FTAs. Weakening this 
     provision by allowing a nation to be included should they 
     merely implement ``principal'' recommendations for changes, 
     undermines the U.S. commitment to lead on human trafficking 
     and raises doubt regarding the ability of the FTAs to protect 
     workers and ensure compliance by trading partners with 
     internationally recognized ILO labor rights, including the 
     right to be free from forced labor. This move is particularly 
     troubling given the recent interest expressed by Thailand in 
     joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Thailand is a 
     Tier 3 trafficking nation and should not be allowed to 
     participate in the TPP until such time as it is no longer 
     justifiably designated as a worst-trafficking nation. On a 
     related note, language is included in the bill that could be 
     used to prevent trade deals from ensuring that migrant 
     workers have effective protections and remedies against 
     fraud, trafficking, forced labor, and other forms of labor 
     exploitation and abuse.
       This package also contains a harmful bill unrelated to 
     trade. We strenuously oppose the inclusion of the Permanent 
     Internet Tax Freedom Act (PITFA), which bans the authority of 
     state and local governments to impose taxes on internet 
     access. By restricting state and local government taxing 
     authority, this bill reduces the ability of state and local 
     governments to raise funds to invest in needed 
     infrastructure, education, health care, job training and 
     other vital public services. This unrelated harmful measure 
     was unfortunately added at the last minute.
       While the bill does contain Rep. Sanchez's ENFORCE Act, 
     which would address the circumvention of antidumping and 
     countervailing duties and assist with addressing unfair 
     trade, other provisions in this bill remain unacceptable.
       The Customs Conference Report unfortunately too closely 
     resembles the flawed

[[Page 20083]]

     House version of the bill and the AFL-CIO urges you to oppose 
     it.
           Sincerely,

                                               William Samuel,

                          Director, Government Affairs Department.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make is, with what 
you are doing, even though there is a 4-year lapse, you are 
grandfathering this. My own State of Texas will lose $358 million, 
Wisconsin $120 million, Ohio $65 million, and South Dakota will lose 
about $13 million.
  Are we going to replace those moneys from the Federal Government? 
What are we going to do to the retail industry that has bricks and 
mortar?
  My friends, I am going to support a CR, but I do believe we should 
work together to do things that impact us positively and not 
negatively. Get rid of the riders and help our States, which have a 
need to have this Internet tax provision lifted.
  Mr. Speaker, as a senior Member of the House Judiciary Committee; as 
the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland 
Security, and Investigations; and as the representative from Houston, I 
rise in opposition to the ``Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act'' being 
in this bill.
   When originally enacted in 1998, the Internet Tax Freedom Act 
established a temporary moratorium on multiple and discriminatory 
taxation of the Internet as well as new taxes on Internet access.
  This moratorium, however, is due to expire on October 1st of this 
year.
  Since 1998, Congress has extended the moratorium on a temporary 
basis. The bill before us will make that moratorium permanent.
  Unfortunately, in doing so, the bill also ends the Act's grandfather 
protections for states that imposed such taxes prior to the Act's 
enactment date.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill is problematic for several reasons.
  First, Congress, instead of supporting this seriously flawed 
legislation, should be focusing on meaningful ways to help state and 
local governments, taxpayers, and local retailers. The House can do 
that by addressing the remote sales tax issue.
  In addition to extending the expiring moratorium on a temporary 
basis, the House should take up and send to the Senate legislation that 
would give states the authority to collect sales taxes from remote 
sellers.
  Such a proposal would incentivize remote sellers to collect and remit 
sales taxes as well as require states to simplify several procedures 
that would benefit retailers.
  Such legislation would enable states and local governments to collect 
more than $23 billion in estimated uncollected sales taxes each year.
  The measure would also help level the playing field for local 
retailers--who must collect sales taxes--when they compete with out-of-
state businesses that do not collect these taxes.
  Retail competitors should be able to compete fairly with their 
internet counterparts at least with respect to sales tax policy.
  The House should do its part and address the remote sales tax 
disparity before the end of this Congress.
  Second, this legislation will severely impact the immediate revenues 
for the grandfather-protected states and all states progressively in 
the long term.
  The Congressional Budget Office, for example, estimates that this 
bill will cost certain states ``several hundred million dollars 
annually'' in lost revenues.
  Indeed, the Federation of Tax Administrators has estimated that the 
bill will cause the grandfather-protected states to lose at least $500 
million in lost revenue annually.
  For my home state of Texas, enactment of this bill will result in a 
revenue loss of $358 million per year. Texas will not be alone in these 
losses, annually: Wisconsin will lose about $127 million, Ohio will 
lose about $65 million, and South Dakota will lose about $13 million.
  Should this bill become law, state and local governments will have to 
choose whether they will cut essential government services--such as 
educating our children, maintaining needed transportation 
infrastructure, and providing essential public health and safety 
services--or shift the tax burden onto other taxpayers through 
increased property, income, and sales taxes.
  Meanwhile, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has estimated 
that the permanent moratorium will deny the non-grandfathered states of 
almost $6.5 billion in potential state and local sales tax revenues 
each year in perpetuity.
  This bill will burden taxpayers, while excluding an entire industry 
from paying their fair share of taxes.
  Finally, this bill ignores the fundamental nature of the Internet.
  The original moratorium was intentionally made temporary to ensure 
that Congress, industry, and state and local governments would be able 
to monitor the issue and make adjustments where necessary to 
accommodate new technologies and market realities.
  The Act was intended as a temporary measure to assist and nurture the 
fledgling Internet that--back in 1998--was still in its commercial 
infancy. Yet, this bill ignores the significantly changed environment 
of today's internet.
  The bill's supporters continue to believe that the internet still is 
in need of extraordinary protection in the form of exemption from all 
state taxation.
  But, the internet of 2015 is drastically different from its 1998 
predecessor. And, surely the internet and its attendant technology will 
continue to evolve.
  Permanently extending the tax moratorium severely limits Congress's 
ability to revisit and make any necessary adjustments.
  Simply put, a permanent moratorium is unwise.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 235 and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  The bill is misguided legislation that will devastate state revenues, 
especially for those states currently protected by the grandfather 
clause, and could force state governments to eliminate essential 
governmental programs and services, while increasing the burden on 
taxpayers.
  For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject this flawed 
legislation; that makes the internet tax moratorium permanent, in part.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, I want to thank my friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Texas, for coming down and raising important issues.
  I am not involved in the negotiations where HUD is concerned, but it 
would be my hope that her concerns would be addressed, quite frankly. I 
think, with the additional funds that are a product of the bipartisan 
negotiations of the Budget Act, which I know my friend supported, there 
is certainly a prospect that that will occur.
  The negotiations that are going on now are indeed bipartisan. I have 
no doubt my friend's point of view is ably represented by her 
Democratic colleagues in those negotiations and by the administration. 
So, hopefully, we will arrive at a product in the next few days that 
will address some of those concerns.
  I want to reinforce my friend's remarks about moving in a cooperative 
way. Again, we are not going to agree on every part of every piece of 
legislation, but I think the underlying legislation that we present 
today is a product of bipartisan cooperation and of compromise and of 
give-and-take. It is my hope that many people on both sides of the 
aisle will be able to support that.
  There are three important elements of the Customs proposals. My 
friend from Oregon earlier laid out the many virtues with them, and, 
frankly, my friend from Colorado has extolled many parts of them.
  The prohibition of taxation on the Internet I think is something we 
have routinely passed through this body since 1998. It has usually not 
been a particularly contentious issue. It is something we agree on on 
both sides of the aisle. Making it permanent makes a lot of sense, and 
I am hopeful that many of my colleagues who have worked so hard on that 
will see that as an advantage.
  Finally, I don't think we disagree on a short-term continuing 
resolution because we know that our Representatives on the 
Appropriations Committee--certainly Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member 
Lowey--are working really hard to find a bipartisan compromise.

                              {time}  1000

  Now, I will remind my friends, we are not going to agree on every 
part of this bill. There will be elements, so-called riders, that are 
in them that probably some of my friends don't like. There will be 
Democratic riders in this bill, not just Republican riders. That is 
just the process of normal legislation.
  Congress has every right to use the power of the purse. I don't know 
any executive branch, be it Republican or

[[Page 20084]]

Democrat, that ever likes Congress getting down to the details of this. 
They just expect us to write a check for whatever they ask for. Well, 
that is not the way our Constitution is set up.
  While the executive branch has a range of powers and authorities that 
are unique to itself, at the end of the day, we do fund every single 
activity that they engage in. At the end of the day, we have the right 
to say: Well, we agree with you here, here, and here, but we disagree 
here, and we are not funding that activity.
  Now, in this case, I would always point out that wherever we end up 
at the end of the day is, by necessity, going to be a matter of 
compromise. My friends, frankly, don't have the congressional strength 
in either the House or the Senate to dictate to us, but we don't have 
it to dictate to them either.
  Obviously, the President of the United States is of my friend's 
political party, and he has got to sign this legislation. So anything 
that gets done is going to involve a lot of compromises. Anything that 
comes to this floor, whether you like or dislike it, will have been 
approved at some level or, at least, accepted at some level by Members 
of both parties, as this is what we had to agree to.
  So I am optimistic about that, and I am very pleased, frankly, that 
this process is largely driven by the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, Mr. Rogers, and by Mrs. Lowey from New York. I know them to 
be exceptional legislators. I know that all parties concerned here and 
their Senate counterparts and their administration counterparts are 
involved in a good faith effort to give us a good funding bill for next 
year and to set the stage for what we hope is a normal appropriations 
process.
  If we have that process next year, my friends on both sides of the 
aisle will have the opportunity to see every bill on the floor, the 
opportunity to offer any amendment they want, the opportunity to 
literally educate the committee about some concern that may be unique 
to their district or something that they understand, frankly, better 
than the members of the Appropriations Committee. That is the process 
that we are trying to get back to. I know it will serve the country 
well if we can actually reach that.
  What we have done in the last few months of this year has actually 
set that up: the budget agreement, which was proceeded by a temporary 
CR and the budget agreement that came out of that, the omnibus we are 
working on now, and the legislation that has passed in the last few 
weeks in a very bipartisan fashion on education and highways. All of 
those things create a foundation for what can be an exceptionally 
productive year next year and one where we move through regular order.
  Again, I thank my friend from Texas for bringing her concerns to the 
floor. I look forward to working with her on the underlying 
legislation, which I hope has enough items in it to attract significant 
bipartisan support.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Ways and Means Committee and as 
someone who has been involved in negotiations in regards to the Customs 
bill before us today, I rise in strong support of that bill. I 
encourage my colleagues to do the same.
  The Customs bill before us today is not the Customs bill that was 
reported out of the House in June of this year, a bill, quite frankly, 
that I couldn't support because of extraneous provisions--controversial 
provisions--that got included in it.
  Through the product of the give-and-take in the negotiations, I think 
we reached a good bipartisan compromise. This is what bipartisanship 
looks like: the cooperation, the give-and-take. It is not a perfect 
bill. I know there are still some objections to it.
  At its crux, however, this bill provides us important tools and 
resources to enhance enforcement mechanisms so we can enforce trade 
agreements and the standards that we are trying to elevate in these 
trade agreements. For instance, this bill, with the language that I 
worked on very hard with my colleagues Mr. Levin and Mr. Lewis on the 
Ways and Means Committee will finally end the importation of goods and 
products based on the exploitation of child and forced and slave labor. 
That is in this bill.
  This bill also includes the full ENFORCE Act on the Senate side, the 
PROMISE Act on the House side that again gives us additional tools to 
enforce elevated standards in the trade agreements that we lacked 
previously.
  It also establishes for the first time an interagency trade 
enforcement center to require greater coordination from our agencies 
when it comes to the implementation and the enforcement of trade 
provisions that matter, leveling the playing field for our businesses, 
our workers, and our farmers.
  With the help of my friend from Oregon, we were able to get included 
a trade enforcement trust fund so that resources are dedicated for the 
enforcement of trade agreements. I hear that a lot from our colleagues 
that they are not so much concerned with what goes into the trade 
agreements; they are more concerned about the lack of follow-up and the 
enforcement of the trade agreements. Again, because of the progress we 
have made and the creation of this trust fund, there will be resources 
in the future that will enable us to better enforce the trade 
agreements that are in front of us.
  This also, again, to the credit of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer), establishes a Super 301 section, enhanced trade 
enforcement on key priorities, such as labor, environmental, and human 
rights standards that are now being negotiated in the body of these 
trade agreements. They are fully enforceable like any other provision. 
This Super 301 gives us tools now to be able to follow that up and 
enforce it.
  This also establishes a State trade and export promotion program to 
help our smaller businesses, our manufacturers in our respective States 
to get in the game and be able to offer more export opportunities to 
them. We know that with exporting companies their workers are paid 
roughly 18 to 19 percent more than other workers in our economy, so 
this is a good thing to help promote exports in our own country.
  This also provides our Treasury-enhanced tools when it comes to 
fighting against the manipulation of currency in the foreign markets. 
The Bennett language that was agreed to in this language is a step in 
the right direction when it comes to the enforcement of currency 
manipulation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, again, that is a source of concern that many 
of our colleagues have expressed concern about and, I think, 
legitimately so. Again, progress was made in this Customs bill when it 
comes to currency manipulation.
  For all these reasons, I think it is important that we move forward 
on this Customs bill and give this administration and future 
administrations the tools they need in order to enforce trade 
agreements so we can elevate standards and begin to level the playing 
field for our workers, our businesses, and our farmers so that they can 
be as successful as they can be in the 21st century global economy. I 
encourage my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to quickly respond to my friend's point and, number one, 
thank him for his hard work in getting us to this position on this very 
important Customs legislation. I appreciate the bipartisan manner in 
which the work product was clearly achieved. I take a lot of hope from 
the fact that our current Speaker was actually the chairman of the 
committee in much of that process, and obviously Mr. Brady from Texas 
continues in that tradition. So I

[[Page 20085]]

am pretty hopeful that we are seeing a good, open process that is 
producing products that Members on both sides of this Chamber are happy 
to support and participate in. So this is a good and hopeful thing. 
Again, I thank my friend for coming back and educating us about an area 
he knows a great deal more about than I do.
  I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Cole 
has been a leader in this area for many years now, and I appreciate 
that leadership.
  I rise today, as chairman of the House Small Business Committee, in 
strong support of H.R. 644, the Trade Facilitation and Trade 
Enforcement Act of 2015.
  The importance of robust international trade for America's small 
businesses cannot be overstated. Small businesses represent 98 percent 
of all goods-exporting firms in the United States--98 percent are small 
businesses--establishing our Nation's role as the world's leader in 
international trade. Seven out of every 10 new jobs in this country are 
created by small businesses. So if we want to improve the economy and 
trade, small businesses are an integral part of doing that. In my home 
State of Ohio alone, more than 1.5 million jobs are tied to 
international trade, many of them with these small firms.
  The bipartisan Customs reauthorization bill before us today will give 
small businesses the confidence and security they need to compete in a 
global marketplace. Specifically, it accomplishes this important goal 
by making sure international trade agreements are working to benefit 
America's small businesses and the employees of those small businesses. 
That is why I am pleased that the finished bill incorporates language 
that our committee helped to craft to ensure we are doing everything we 
can to keep the doors of trade open to small businesses. We have done 
this in that committee, in general, in a bipartisan fashion.
  By modernizing the procedures and systems used by Customs and Border 
Protection, this bill also improves trade facilitation and makes sure 
their safeguards are working as intended.
  By giving the Treasury new tools to crack down on currency 
manipulation, this bill ensures that foreign competitors like China 
aren't taking advantage of our workers and small businesses. That has 
been a top issue for those of us that have dealt with trade, and that 
is the concept, that the Chinese have been manipulating their currency 
to give them an unfair advantage over America's businesses, that this 
bill helps to deal with.
  By empowering the CPB and the Department of Commerce, this bill will 
make it easier to hold bad actors accountable when they engage in 
unfair trade or evasive trade practices. Mr. Speaker, this is truly 
commonsense legislation that will help America's small businesses at a 
time when they need our help to compete in the era of globalization.
  I also thank my friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Brady), the 
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, for his leadership on this 
issue. He has worked on this since he introduced a Customs 
reauthorization bill back in 2011, and I know that is the basis for 
today's legislation. I again thank Chairman Cole for his hard work in 
this area because trade is important to jobs. Yes, it is important to 
large corporations, but it is especially important to those small 
businesses all across America who engage in international trade. In the 
Small Business Committee, we are encouraging them more and more to do 
that. That means more jobs for more families all over this country.
  I urge my colleagues to support this.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, even after we pass this continuing resolution today, we 
will still be just 5 days away from a government shutdown. That is no 
way to run the greatest, freest, most prosperous country on the face of 
the Earth. We agree on so many of the issues. I urge my colleagues to 
stop the partisan games.
  We have shown in recent weeks we can produce good, bipartisan 
legislation when we just put the controversial, divisive poison pills 
on the side. Look at what we accomplished in transportation and in 
education. Let's continue that trend. Let's drop the ideological wish 
list for another time and pass the spending bill without the last-
minute hysterics and partisan riders.
  In recent weeks, Americans have witnessed two senseless, horrific 
mass shootings: one very near to my district in Colorado that took 
three lives, and another in San Bernardino, California, that took 14 
lives. These slayings are heartbreaking and tragic. Sadly, no one can 
any longer use the adjective to describe them as ``shocking.'' There 
have been 355 mass shootings in 2015, which, themselves, are just a 
small portion of the 48,000 incidents of gun violence so far this year.
  While I strongly support the rights given to Americans in our Second 
Amendment, I believe there are commonplace measures that we must take 
to curtail gun violence. A commonsense improvement we can make is 
passing legislation to keep individuals who are suspected of terrorist 
activity from purchasing firearms.
  If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule that would allow the House to consider H.R. 1076, the Denying 
Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015. H.R. 1076 
would amend the criminal code to stop the issuance of firearm licenses 
to people on the terrorism watch list.
  Mr. 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 Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. It is time to act. Let's 
make it harder for criminals and terrorists to quietly assemble 
arsenals designed to kill innocent Americans. We can do that. We can 
protect the Second Amendment. We can implement commonsense reforms that 
keep America safe.

                              {time}  1015

  There is nothing Congress can do to end gun violence, but we can and 
we must take action to reduce gun violence. If we defeat the previous 
question, we will do that. It will pass, and it will become law, and 
the American people will be safer. Stop standing in the way, Mr. 
Speaker.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First, before I close, I want to thank my friend for the debate and 
for his thoughtful remarks.
  Not surprisingly, there will be a couple of areas in my close where I 
disagree with my good friend. One of them is the process itself. I 
share, actually, his frustration and the need for us to move under 
regular order. I share the frustration I think both sides share in this 
that we are doing an omnibus, but I remind my friends, we moved six 
bills across the floor here. Every bill has moved through the full 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Frankly, our friends on the other side of the rotunda need to take a 
considerable responsibility for the delay in the appropriations, since 
they prevented the Senate from actually picking up and acting on 
individual bills. I think, frankly, had they done so, we would have had 
a more orderly process and been out of here in an easier way. My hope 
is next year they will do that, because I think in the bipartisan 
budget compromise, we set a framework up by deciding early on what the 
top line numbers are for next year, where that process can, indeed, 
occur. I certainly promise to work with my friends on the other side of 
the aisle to see that we restore regular order, bring each 
appropriations bill down here.
  I am going to disagree with my friend, too, on this terrorist watch 
list idea. This is a very interesting point. I think Members on both 
sides are equally committed to making sure all of our

[[Page 20086]]

citizens are safe, but the terrorist watch list that my friend has 
talked about is one of the more mysterious lists in the United States.
  As I read the press, I find one article that tells me there are 
47,000 people on it; another one that tells me, no, there is 470,000 
people; yet another that tells me there are 1 million people on it or 
more. I do know that the American Civil Liberties Union has called the 
terrorist watch list a ``massive, virtually standardless, government 
watch list scheme that ensnares innocent people and encourages racial 
and religious profiling.'' Now, that is not from a conservative group. 
That is the American Civil Liberties Union.
  I also know in this Chamber, one of our distinguished colleagues, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), who, when he was a State 
senator, found out accidentally going to the airport he was on the 
terrorist watch list. He found out another Democratic colleague, 
another State senator, was also on the terrorist watch list. They 
inquired as to why, and they were told: Well, we can't tell you.
  Eventually, working with the Sergeant at Arms of the California 
Senate, they were able to determine Mr. McClintock had been confused 
with an IRA--Irish Republican Army--terrorist, and the other gentleman 
had been confused with somebody else. We know that the late Senator 
Kennedy was, at one time, on the terrorist watch list. So I think this 
is a very imperfect tool that will ensnare lots of innocent Americans 
in it.
  It is also worth noting--and this was a fact that was made acquainted 
to me by our good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell) 
who, along with his distinguished record of service for over 21 years 
in the United States Army, is an arms manufacturer and an arms seller--
he pointed out actually the terrorist watch list is one of the lists 
that is used by the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms group to decide 
whether or not to issue a permit. So it is a factor in now. It is not 
exclusive. You wouldn't exclude somebody simply because they were 
there, but it is a factor taken into consideration.
  I say this just to suggest that perhaps we shouldn't seize on this as 
a be-all and a political talking point. This is worth a real serious 
look as to whether or not this particular list, how it is compiled, who 
is on it, what is the appropriate way to use it?
  I think the last thing we should do is attach it to legislation 
without the appropriate hearing and discussion of it, which actually I 
think my friend on the other side would generally be in favor of.
  There are plenty of reasons, anecdotal and serious studies, when, 
again, groups like the American Civil Liberties Union look at this as a 
very imperfect tool that will violate the civil liberties of the 
average American. Again, I caution my friends on the other side. It is 
a great political talking point, but I think it is a pretty imperfect 
tool, and I think they would find themselves embarrassed, frankly, were 
it used in the manner that they suggest here.
  Mr. Speaker, let me move to my close. Passage of the continuing 
resolution, as we both agree, is critical to prevent a government 
shutdown and, frankly, to allow both sides and the administration to 
continue to negotiate. A CR passed the Senate yesterday by voice vote. 
We should pass this rule, and we should support the underlying 
legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An amendment to H. Res. 560 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, 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. 
     1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney 
     General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of 
     firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected 
     dangerous terrorist. 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 the Judiciary. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 1076.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. COLE. Mr. 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. POLIS. 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, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236, 
nays 177, not voting 20, as follows:

[[Page 20087]]



                             [Roll No. 690]

                               YEAS--236

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--177

     Adams
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Aguilar
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     DeFazio
     Fincher
     Green, Gene
     Harper
     Jenkins (KS)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kildee
     Kuster
     Meadows
     Nolan
     Payne
     Pompeo
     Reichert
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Sessions
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1051

  Mr. RANGEL and Ms. EDWARDS changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. PETERSON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. McCarthy was allowed to speak out of 
order.)


                          Legislative Program

  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, looking ahead to next week, Members are 
advised that no votes are expected in the House on Monday.
  Members are further advised that first votes of the week are expected 
on Tuesday at 6:30 p.m., and it is my intent to stay until we get our 
work done.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will 
continue.
  There was no objection.
  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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 236, 
noes 174, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 691]

                               AYES--236

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder

[[Page 20088]]


     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--174

     Adams
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Aguilar
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     DeFazio
     DeSantis
     Fincher
     Frelinghuysen
     Green, Gene
     Harper
     Jenkins (KS)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kildee
     Kuster
     Loebsack
     Meadows
     Nolan
     Payne
     Pompeo
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Sessions
     Smith (TX)
     Westmoreland


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1059

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 691, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________