[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7005-7011]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5055, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 
             AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 743 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 743

       Resolved, That (a) at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5055) making appropriations for energy and 
     water development and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of 
     rule XXI are waived.
        (b) During consideration of the bill for amendment--
       (1) each amendment, other than amendments provided for in 
     paragraph (2), shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent;
       (2) no pro forma amendment shall be in order except that 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 
     10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of 
     debate; and
       (3) the chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord 
     priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member 
     offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read.
       (c) When the committee rises and reports the bill back to 
     the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, 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.
       Sec. 2.  Section 508 of H.R. 5055 shall be considered to be 
     a spending reduction account for purposes of section 3(d) of 
     House Resolution 5.
       Sec. 3.  During consideration of H.R. 5055 pursuant to this 
     resolution, section 3304 of Senate Concurrent Resolution 11 
     shall not apply.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), a good friend of mine from the Rules Committee, pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 743,

[[Page 7006]]

providing for consideration of an important piece of legislation, H.R. 
5055, the fiscal year 2017 Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
bill. The rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 5055 under a 
modified open rule, allowing for consideration of all amendments that 
are germane to the bill and conform to House rules.
  Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2017 Energy and Water Development bill 
appropriates annual funding for national defense nuclear weapons 
activities, the Army Corps of Engineers, various programs under DOE, 
and other related agencies.
  Over the past few years, we have seen increasing threats to our 
national security, historic droughts in many regions of the United 
States, the importance of water, and the need for greater energy 
security and independence. This legislation addresses all of these 
issues, as well as many others, and invests in efforts to promote a 
more secure and prosperous future for our Nation.
  With ever-changing global security threats from Russia and Iran to 
terrorist groups like ISIL and al Qaeda, national security continues--
as well it should--to be a top concern for many Americans. Now it is 
more vital than ever that the U.S. maintain our nuclear security 
preparedness, and this legislation takes important steps to ensure our 
nuclear weapons stockpile is modern, secure, stable, and available. It 
provides a total of $12.9 billion for DOE's nuclear weapons security 
programs. That is a $327 million increase above the 2016 level. And 
this funding will uphold the Nation's nuclear deterrence posture, 
maintain the safety and the readiness of our weapons stockpile, and 
allow the U.S. to meet any nuclear threat.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5055 also addresses the need for reliable water 
resources. As we have seen from the severe droughts that have impacted 
many Western States, accessibility to safe and adequate water resources 
is critical to our local communities. In my home State of Washington, 
we have seen historic droughts over the past few years, with serious 
water supply shortages that have impacted the agriculture, energy, and 
manufacturing sectors as well as many families and small businesses 
that rely on an adequate and stable supply of water.
  Additionally, Washington and much of the Western United States have 
experienced catastrophic wildfire seasons over the last 2 years, with 
Washington enduring back-to-back years of record-setting fires which 
have been fueled by a lack of rainfall and extremely arid conditions. 
This legislation contains funds for the Department of the Interior and 
the Bureau of Reclamation to help manage, develop, and protect the 
water resources of Western States. Further, the measure includes 
several new provisions to help Western communities by providing relief 
from the onerous and excessive Federal regulations that have 
exacerbated this situation.
  Energy independence is paramount to the future of our country, and 
the fiscal year 2017 Energy and Water Development bill invests in an 
all-of-the-above energy strategy in order to promote a more secure and 
prosperous future for our Nation. Under the legislation, funding is 
allocated for DOE energy programs, and the bill prioritizes and 
increases funding for the programs that encourage U.S. economic 
competitiveness and help advance the goal of greater domestic energy 
production and security.
  This bill provides funds for research and development to advance 
coal, natural gas, oil, and other fossil energy technologies which will 
help the U.S. make better use of our rich national energy resources and 
help keep energy costs low. Additionally, nuclear energy research, 
development, and demonstration activities are increased.
  Mr. Speaker, while this bill includes funding for many activities 
that are critical to our country's future, it also appropriates funds 
to address an important issue from our past, and that is the cleanup of 
our country's defense nuclear sites that supported our previous nuclear 
weapons production. These sites played a critical part in our country's 
ability to win World War II as well as the cold war by producing the 
basic and complex materials used in the fabrication of nuclear weapons.
  It just happens that the largest of these sites is the Hanford 
Nuclear Reservation, which is located in my central Washington State 
district. It produced plutonium for nuclear weapons development both 
during and after World War II. There are many similar sites across the 
country where the Federal Government has a moral and a legal obligation 
to clean up the remaining contaminated facilities and hazardous nuclear 
waste.
  A key component of our defense environmental cleanup efforts is the 
availability of a viable nuclear repository where this waste can be 
stored. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Yucca Mountain is the country's only 
legal and permanent nuclear repository, though for years there have 
been efforts to kill the use of this site, efforts that would hinder 
defense nuclear cleanup for decades and would waste the Federal 
Government's $15 billion investment in this repository. This 
legislation continues congressional efforts to support Yucca Mountain 
by providing funding for the nuclear waste disposal program and funds 
for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to continue the adjudication of 
DOE's Yucca Mountain license application. Additionally, the bill denies 
the administration's funding proposals for non-Yucca nuclear waste 
activities.
  Another component of this measure is strong support for our national 
laboratories, such as the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory located 
in Washington's Fourth Congressional District. These labs perform 
critical research on cybersecurity, develop high-performance computing 
systems, and advance the next generation of energy sources which lay 
the groundwork for a more secure energy future, helping to reduce the 
Nation's dependence on foreign energy and ensuring continued economic 
growth.
  Finally, H.R. 5055 includes many conservative policy priorities that 
are critical to combating the administration's efforts to undermine 
economic growth through excessive and burdensome regulations. The bill 
effectively prohibits the EPA and the Corps from implementing the 
waters of the United States rule and any changes to Federal 
jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. It also restricts the 
application of the Clean Water Act in certain agricultural areas. There 
is also language prohibiting the administration from changing the 
definition of ``fill material'' and ``discharge fill material.'' From 
the beginning, the WOTUS rule has been an unprecedented Federal power 
grab that expands Federal regulation over ponds, over streams, and over 
irrigation ditches in the middle of cropland, giving the EPA 
unprecedented say over what farmers can or cannot do with their land. 
This bill takes the important step of prohibiting funding for the 
implementation of this deeply misguided rule which would have 
devastating economic consequences for farmers, for ranchers, for small 
businesses, and for communities across our country.
  Additionally, the legislation protects Americans' constitutional 
Second Amendment rights by including language that allows law-abiding 
Americans to possess firearms on Army Corps of Engineers public lands. 
In places in my district, these public lands are used heavily by the 
community.
  The bill includes language that I offered along with Congressman 
Gosar of Arizona to prevent the removal of any Federal dams, protecting 
the critical flood control and the hydropower benefits provided by 
these facilities. Hydropower is a key resource throughout the West, and 
we must prevent misguided attempts to shut down these dams.
  Finally, it continues a restriction from fiscal year 2016 to prevent 
any funds from being used to start or enter into any new nuclear 
nonproliferation contracts or agreements with Russia.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule that provides for the consideration 
of H.R. 5055, the fiscal year 2017 Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act.

                              {time}  1330

  This is a responsible measure that supports the U.S. national 
security, safety, and economic competitiveness;

[[Page 7007]]

advances an all-of-the-above energy strategy; and makes strategic 
investments in infrastructure and water resources projects--balancing 
these critical priorities while still maintaining tight budget caps. 
These efforts will help promote a more secure and prosperous future for 
our Nation, which is why I urge all of my colleagues to support the 
rule and support the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I thank my colleague from Washington for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, every year, the House comes together to allocate funds 
for programs across the country. From keeping our waters clean to 
managing our nuclear arsenal, they all need funding.
  Under H.R. 5055, the Energy and Water Development and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act, some programs see shortfalls and others 
windfalls. Balancing these competing priorities is a herculean effort, 
and I want to commend Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur 
because they have worked so much in tandem to help bring good bills to 
the floor.
  First, the bill provides robust funding for the Army Corps of 
Engineers, and includes strong funding for the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
Fund, which keeps our Nation's ports and harbors dredged, maintained, 
and operational. As the cochair of the Great Lakes Task Force, I know 
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is an essential component to keeping 
local economies on the shores of the Great Lakes thriving. We owe a 
great deal to the Great Lakes. We are, along with Canada, the 
protectors of 20 percent of the fresh water on the planet, providing 
drinking water for both Canadians and United States citizens. We owe it 
to the great thing that we have inherited there, called the Great 
Lakes, to protect them.
  Also included in the bill is increased funding for much-needed 
nuclear cleanup. The bill provides funding to clear contamination from 
past nuclear weapons research and production activities, creating 
usable land and adding to the safety and well-being of our communities.
  However, I do remain concerned about the funding levels for our 
Nation's scientific research. We should be meeting the President's 
requests, and even adding to them for research funding. The agencies 
that are covered by this bill are not adequate to really meet the needs 
of our Nation's scientific research and help us to make up for lost 
ground and reclaim our global leadership, not pulling on the reins.
  One of those programs funded is in my hometown of Rochester, New 
York. We are a photonics hub, Mr. Speaker--one of the best in the 
world--and we have recently been named an innovative manufacturing 
facility in Rochester. Let me tell you what kind of excellent research 
that we are doing up there and what great things we are already capable 
of doing.
  About 12 engineers, who had previously worked at Eastman Kodak on 35-
year-old repurposed Kodak equipment, made the components of the night 
vision goggles that took down Osama bin Laden. That same small company 
with 250 employees also made the laser beams that the Navy SEALs used 
to take down the Somali pirates holding Captain Phillips. That was on 
35-year-old equipment. Imagine what they could do if we were able to 
help them get new machines. Rochester is also famous with Eastman Kodak 
because the Norden bombsight was made there, which was a great 
contributor into the winning of World War II.
  It is awfully important that we recognize what has happened there now 
and make sure that we can keep it going. In many cases it is falling 
apart, and we need much more help for it.
  I am grateful for the money for the laser lab because it not only is 
moving research along, but it is responsible for checking on the 
supplies that we have of nuclear weapons to make sure that they are in 
good condition without having to do live testing.
  There are bright spots in the bill, but there are some harmful policy 
riders that stand in the way of strong investments.
  These policy riders include one that would prevent the Army Corps of 
Engineers from clarifying which waters are protected by the Clean Water 
Act by locking in a widely acknowledged state of confusion about the 
scope of the law's pollution control programs. While it sounds nice to 
let everybody just do all of the runoffs that they want into the Great 
Lakes, the algae pollution problem caused by runoff of pesticide 
control and other things that are in the water have caused us a great 
deal of pain up there. That is not a very good idea either in 
stewardship or for our future. But the runoff of pesticides and other 
things that they do certainly needs more attention than we are getting. 
I think in this bill we are going in the wrong direction on that.
  Another rider would prevent the Corps from using funds to regulate 
industry waste, locking in loopholes for polluters, and leaving many of 
the waterways vulnerable to harmful pollution. We know better than 
that, too. We know that it is not smart. Remember, many of those are 
the water that we drink.
  Also, I know that my colleague mentioned the one that he liked, the 
highly partisan and controversial rider that would allow guns to be 
carried on all Corps of Engineers land. Given the number of Americans 
killing each other on a daily basis with guns--and one week about 2 
weeks ago, four toddlers, who got ahold of guns that were unsecured, 
killing themselves--more guns on more lands is not my idea of the way 
that we should be looking at it. I am very much concerned that we don't 
want to live in a country--that I think we are becoming--where people 
can leave home to go to work, or to the theater, or to school, and you 
don't have the assurance, as we all grew up with, that you are going to 
be safely coming back home. Guns are a descendant of pioneers. The idea 
of having everybody have a gun--there are 330 million Americans and 320 
million guns--that seems to me to be a pretty one-sided equation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to agree with the 
gentlewoman from New York. I certainly, too, appreciate the bipartisan 
effort that was put into this bill on the part of both Chairman Simpson 
as well as Ranking Member Kaptur. They did an excellent job, which is 
illustrated in both the committee and the subcommittee. This 
legislation passed on a voice vote. That is a demonstration of great 
bipartisan support, and certainly speaks well to this committee doing 
excellent work together.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Carter).
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Congressman 
Newhouse and the Rules Committee, as well as Chairman Simpson and the 
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Subcommittee, for their leadership and progress made on this year's 
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
  H.R. 5055, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, is a step forward in updating our Nation's 
waterborne infrastructure and energy needs.
  The First District of Georgia is home to a unique set of resources, 
with two large ports, various wetlands and islands, and the State's 
entire coastline. Whether it is the Savannah Harbor Expansion Program, 
the growth of the Port of Brunswick, or the unique characteristics 
involved with wetlands permitting, the Energy and Water Appropriations 
bill has a significant impact on the citizens of the First 
Congressional District of Georgia.
  The Port of Savannah is the second busiest East Coast port, and is 
rapidly expanding, growing at a substantial rate year after year. The 
Port of Brunswick is the third busiest roll-on/roll-off cargo port in 
the country. These ports are the economic engines of Georgia and for 
the Southeast, reaching as far as the Midwest in cargo imported and 
exported out of their facilities.

[[Page 7008]]

  H.R. 5055 is vital to ensuring that projects like the Savannah Harbor 
Expansion Project continue on time so our Nation's economy continues to 
grow.
  I would like to thank the gentleman, the Rules Committee, and the 
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Subcommittee for 
their continued devotion to this cause.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada (Ms. Titus).
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I am here to discuss provisions in the 
underlying bill that relate to the State of Nevada--provisions that are 
identical to language in last year's bill to try and restart the failed 
Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump just outside my Congressional 
District.
  First, with all due respect, let me correct my friend across the 
aisle. Yucca Mountain is not a defense repository. It is a commercial 
nuclear power plant repository. Let's be clear about that.
  Second, a recent Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement by the 
NRC confirmed what we in Nevada have known for decades: Yucca Mountain 
is not a secure repository that would seal dangerous waste safely for a 
million years. It is, instead, a proposal based on bad science and 
faulty assumptions.
  Specifically, the NRC confirmed that the site is not secure, that it 
will leak, and that radiation will travel for miles through underground 
water sources to farming communities in the Amargosa Valley on its way 
to Death Valley National Park.
  But before the radioactive material can leak out of the ground, it 
first has to be shipped, using untested procedures by truck and by rail 
through nearly every State and every Congressional District in the 
lower 48. These shipments will occur for decades, passing homes and 
schools, parks and hospitals, churches and farms. They will pass 
through the heart of my Congressional District, along the famed Las 
Vegas strip where 42 million people come every year to work and play.
  We need to stop the Yucca Mountain boondoggle once and for all, and 
turn, instead, to recommendations from the Blue Ribbon Commission on 
Nuclear Waste, including my legislation, the Nuclear Waste Informed 
Consent Act.
  Congress must either accept this reality and work towards actual 
solutions, or we can continue this charade every appropriations season, 
whereby language to fund Yucca shows up in bills so politicians can 
continue to collect checks from the nuclear energy industry.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I do want to thank the gentlewoman from New York for her comments as 
they relate to the moral and legal obligation of the Federal Government 
to continue the nuclear waste cleanup that we have all over this 
country.
  And then the gentlewoman from Nevada certainly has voiced some 
concerns that we have heard before that are important to the people in 
the State of Nevada.
  Let me just remind everyone that we are under a modified open rule. 
If there are changes to this bill, every Member in this body has an 
opportunity to provide amendments to this bill. Under a modified open 
rule, everything is on the table. If that is something that she can get 
the support of the majority of the people on this floor, then that is 
certainly something that she can take out of this bill.
  But I have another opinion, another viewpoint. I have been to Yucca 
Mountain. I don't know that there is a perfect place in the universe to 
store nuclear waste, but Yucca Mountain, to me, seems to be about as 
close to perfect as you can find. In that mountain, we have 1,000 feet 
of rock above where the waste would be stored, and you have 1,000 feet 
of rock below where that storage situation would be. And I should 
remind the body that Yucca Mountain is the country's only legal and 
permanent nuclear repository. It is for both commercial as well as 
defense waste, and it is a critical component of our efforts to clean 
up the defense nuclear waste created during and after World War II.
  While I appreciate the gentlewoman's differing opinion, she does have 
the opportunity to offer amendments, and I would encourage her to do 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I 
will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up comprehensive 
legislation that provides the resources needed to help the families in 
the city of Flint, Michigan, recover from the water crisis.
  The Families of Flint Act, authored by Mr. Kildee, would provide for 
long-term investments in infrastructure and care for children affected 
by the crisis.
  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 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee) to discuss our proposal.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for offering this 
amendment and for yielding to me.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we 
can immediately bring up H.R. 4479, which, as described, is the 
Families of Flint Act.
  We all know this story. Many Members have heard me talk about it here 
on the floor of the House before. But in short, the city of Flint had 
been a struggling community already because of the loss of jobs.

                              {time}  1345

  Then the State of Michigan just a few years ago cut one of the three 
essential elements to keep that city running--State revenue sharing--
which threw the city into a financial crisis. The State's response: 
appoint a financial manager, an emergency manager, to take over the 
city government, to suspend democracy, and, essentially, to act in 
dictatorial form.
  One of the decisions that that emergency manager made was to move the 
city from using Great Lakes water as its primary drinking water source 
to using the Flint River--a highly corrosive river--just to save money, 
and they did save money. The corrosion from that water, untreated, 
caused lead to leach into the pipes in Flint and into the homes of 
100,000 people.
  There are consequences to that decision. The lives of children--the 
lives of people in Flint--are permanently affected by that. There are 
9,000 children under the age of 6 who could potentially bear scars of 
this poisoning for the rest of their lives and have their development 
affected.
  Lead is a neurotoxin. It affects brain development, and its impact is 
permanent. But, with help, people can overcome the effects of this kind 
of lead exposure.
  The failure by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and 
the terrible mistakes made by the emergency manager cannot be undone. 
The effect can't be changed.
  What we can do is make it right for the people of Flint. We can 
prevent another exposure. The Kildee-Upton bill, which I worked on with 
my friend from across the aisle, Mr. Upton, would do that.
  Just preventing the next Flint isn't enough. We have to make it right 
for the people of Flint and provide them justice.
  The Families of Flint Act would do that. It would provide immediate 
relief in making sure that they have clean drinking water. It would 
provide support to get rid of those lead service lines and improve the 
water distribution system so that this does not happen again.
  Importantly, the Families of Flint Act would also provide ongoing 
support for those families in Flint and give them the kind of health 
care they need to overcome the effect of lead exposure in the 
monitoring of their health.
  Especially, it would provide for kids, who should have every 
opportunity to overcome the effect of lead exposure,

[[Page 7009]]

by basically providing to those 9,000 children the same thing that any 
of us would do for our own children if they had a developmental hurdle 
to overcome--providing the kind of behavioral support and the kind of 
enrichment opportunities that many of these kids, because they are born 
into poverty in Flint, don't have access to. This would provide that 
for them to make sure that they have a chance to overcome this terrible 
crisis.
  Justice for the people of Flint will come in many forms. Some people 
have resigned. Some have been fired. Some have been criminally charged. 
None of that does any good for the people of my hometown unless we also 
do what we can to restore to them the opportunity that the kids in 
Flint and that the families in Flint--like any other American--expect 
to have for their kids.
  Justice comes in lots of forms. Our job in Congress is to make sure 
we seek justice for the people in our country. When one community, one 
group of folks, is struggling, facing a disaster, facing the biggest 
challenge that the community has ever faced, it is our duty, our job, 
our responsibility, to come together to help them.
  The Families of Flint Act would do that by providing Federal help 
that would be required to have State support equal to what the Federal 
Government provides. Basically, rather than litigating who is at fault, 
we would fix the problem and realize that the people who live in Flint 
have a right to have their Federal Government step up for them.
  Even if it were primarily the State's responsibility for what took 
place, they are citizens of the United States just like they are 
citizens of Michigan. When they face the greatest crisis that they have 
ever had, they have every right to expect that Congress itself would 
act to provide for them the relief to get through this disaster.
  We have done it in other cases. There are times when we all come 
together as Americans. This is one of those times. Congress must act. 
Congress should do its job. By defeating the previous question, we can 
bring up the Families of Flint Act and do that.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I would just inquire of the gentlewoman 
from New York if she has any further speakers.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I am prepared to close.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We have today an opportunity to fund groundbreaking, cutting-edge 
research all across the country, to protect our precious environment, 
and to support the Army Corps of Engineers. Yet the addition of several 
harmful, dangerous policy riders will inhibit those goals and have no 
place in the appropriations process.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question and to vote ``no'' on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the good gentlewoman from New York.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule we have considered provides for the 
consideration of a very important piece of legislation that will 
protect our country from security threats; that will ensure we have a 
modern, safe, and reliable U.S. nuclear weapons program; that will 
promote an all-of-the-above energy strategy; and that will make 
critical investments in water resources and infrastructure projects. 
The funds appropriated for national security needs, improvements in our 
Nation's infrastructure, domestic energy development, and growing our 
economy will benefit all Americans.
  This bill is a responsible measure that supports U.S. national 
security, energy research, water resource development, and economic 
competitiveness, balancing these critical priorities while maintaining 
tight budget caps.
  In the current fiscal climate, where our national debt is approaching 
a staggering $20 trillion, many difficult decisions had to be made by 
the committee in drafting this measure, and I believe we have a bill 
that preserves fiscal responsibility, advances sound conservative and 
progrowth economic policies, and prioritizes funding for our country's 
most pressing needs.
  The past few years have seen the U.S. face growing security threats 
abroad, highlighting the need to keep our country at the pinnacle of 
nuclear security preparedness as well as the importance of investing in 
domestic energy production that takes much-needed steps towards energy 
independence.
  In the Western United States, Americans have endured severe droughts 
and catastrophic wildfires, which have drastically restricted the 
availability of water and have devastated ground infrastructure. This 
legislation addresses these issues as well as many others, and it 
invests in efforts to promote a more secure and prosperous future for 
our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, the 2017 Energy and Water Development and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act also includes much-needed conservative 
reforms and policies to counter the administration's issuance of one 
crippling regulation after another, hindering our domestic energy 
development and security and undermining overall economic growth.
  H.R. 5055 prohibits the EPA and the Army Corps from implementing the 
excessive WOTUS rule, which would vastly expand Federal jurisdiction 
over our water resources. It prevents any changes to Federal authority 
under the Clean Water Act and impedes efforts to apply the Clean Water 
Act in certain agricultural areas, such as farm ponds and irrigation 
ditches.
  The legislation blocks efforts to remove Federal dams, and it 
protects Americans' Second Amendment rights by allowing for the 
possession of firearms on Army Corps lands. Finally, it continues a 
policy from last year that restricts any funds from being used to enter 
into any new nuclear nonproliferation contracts or agreements with 
Russia.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill responsibly funds infrastructure, water, and 
defense programs that are critical to our national security, to our 
safety, and to our economic competitiveness, all while making tough 
choices to ensure that taxpayers' funds are spent wisely.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule's adoption and invest in a 
secure and prosperous future for our country by passing the 2017 Energy 
and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

    An Amendment to H. Res. 743 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 4. 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. 
     4479) to provide emergency assistance related to the Flint 
     water crisis, and for other purposes. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 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. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 4479.
                                  ____


        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

[[Page 7010]]

     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. NEWHOUSE. 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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 743, if 
ordered; ordering the previous question on House Resolution 742; 
adoption of House Resolution 742, if ordered; and the motion to suspend 
the rules and pass H.R. 5077.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 174, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 231]

                               YEAS--233

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     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 (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     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
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     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
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     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
     Schweikert
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     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
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--174

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     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
     Meng
     Moore
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     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
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
       
       

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Allen
     Bass
     Bishop (UT)
     Castro (TX)
     Collins (GA)
     Crenshaw
     Engel
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Granger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Jackson Lee
     Loudermilk
     Meeks
     Miller (MI)
     Moulton
     O'Rourke
     Payne
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scott, Austin
     Takai
     Thompson (CA)
     Waters, Maxine
       

                              {time}  1416

  Messrs. CLYBURN, SWALWELL of California, CARSON of Indiana, CLEAVER, 
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts, and Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. GRAVES of Missouri and GROTHMAN changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.

[[Page 7011]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. MOULTON. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, May 24, 2016, I was unable to 
be present for rollcall vote No. 231 on providing for the consideration 
of H.R. 5055. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237, 
nays 171, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 232]

                               YEAS--237

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     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 (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     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
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     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
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     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
     Schweikert
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     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
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke
       
       

                               NAYS--171

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     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
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     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
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
       
       

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Allen
     Bass
     Castro (TX)
     Collins (GA)
     Crenshaw
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Frankel (FL)
     Granger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Jackson Lee
     Loudermilk
     Meeks
     Miller (MI)
     O'Rourke
     Payne
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scott, Austin
     Takai
     Thompson (CA)
     Vela
     Waters, Maxine
       
       

                              {time}  1424

  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.


  

                          ____________________