[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8251-8259]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1230
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 953, REDUCING REGULATORY BURDENS 
                              ACT OF 2017

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 348 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 348

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 953) to amend the Federal Insecticide, 
     Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act to clarify Congressional intent 
     regarding the regulation of the use of pesticides in or near 
     navigable waters, 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 Transportation and 
     Infrastructure. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 115-21. That amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments 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. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), 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. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I found myself listening to the Reading 
Clerk as he read through the rule. It is a fairly straightforward rule, 
but it sounded pretty complicated as he was going through it. And I am 
reminded that

[[Page 8252]]

standing to your left is one of the gentlemen that helps us sort 
through those issues.
  As every Member of this institution knows, who was listening to the 
colloquy last week, Brian Cooper is leaving this House after 35 years 
of public service, honorable service, showing up day in and day out. My 
friend, Mr. McGovern, and I, working on the Rules Committee, sometimes 
go until 2, 3, or 4 in the morning. Well, folks like Mr. Cooper can't 
go home until the Rules Committee goes home.
  So day in and day out, with absolutely no pomp or circumstance, just 
dedicated public service, Brian Cooper served this institution. I fear 
this will be the last time he and I are on the floor together while I 
have control of the microphone. And I did not want to yield control of 
that microphone without telling how much his assistance has meant to 
me.
  You know, Mr. Speaker, standing in that chair is a powerful 
responsibility. The burden sometimes is a lot to bear. When you are 
surrounded by a team of excellence, as you are today, with Ethan to 
your right and Brian to your left, I know you do that with great 
confidence. I am grateful to folks who help us to succeed.
  Thank you, Mr. Cooper, for all of that service.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 348 is a structured rule. It provides 
for consideration of H.R. 953, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 
2017. It makes in order two amendments from my Democratic colleagues--
one from Ms. Esty and one from Mr. Huffman.
  As you might remember, the House passed a nearly identical version of 
this bill last year, Mr. Speaker, but, unfortunately, it did not get 
across the finish line in the Senate, so it did not make it to the 
President's desk. We are trying again this year. My sincere hope is 
that we will succeed.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that you hear from constituents, as I do, talking 
about regulatory burdens, and why can't we bring commonsense rules and 
regulations to Washington. H.R. 953, the bill that this rule would make 
in order, is an attempt to do that.
  This bill prohibits the EPA from requiring unnecessary and 
duplicative pollution permits for certain pesticides. Now, so often 
when we start a sentence with ``this prevents the EPA,'' folks think: 
Oh, there go those Republicans again going after the environment, 
waiving those regulations that protect friends and family.
  Well, as you know, Mr. Speaker, that accusation is never accurate. 
But, in particular, it fails to address this situation.
  For decade upon decade, the EPA has regulated pesticides in this 
country. If we pass H.R. 953 today, for decades and decades to come, 
the EPA will continue to regulate pesticides in this country.
  As a result of litigation, Mr. Speaker, the courts are forcing the 
EPA not to regulate pesticides as pesticides, but to regulate 
pesticides as pollutant discharges, as if there is something else to do 
with pesticides other than to spray it.
  They are saying that you can't just get a permit to use your 
pesticide, Mr. Speaker. You can't just read the label and the proper 
application and get a permit to apply, as indicated on the label. You 
must also get a permit to discharge a pollutant as if the pesticide is 
not already regulated as a pesticide itself.
  Mr. Speaker, it makes no sense. The good news is I am surround by a 
team of excellence here in the United States House of Representatives 
and, in a bipartisan way, we have already agreed that it makes no 
sense.
  You will recall, Mr. Speaker, we brought a substantially similar 
measure to the floor, and we passed it under a process called 
suspension of the rules. It is a process we save for those bills that 
are relatively noncontroversial. It passed in a bipartisan way, but 
didn't make it across the Senate floor.
  We brought it back again, Mr. Speaker, to this floor. We brought it 
under a rule, as we are doing today. It passed again in a bipartisan 
way. We sent it to the Senate, but couldn't make it across the Senate 
floor.
  Mr. Speaker, we added it to the farm bill that we passed here in the 
House, which, again, passed in a bipartisan way. We sent it over to the 
Senate and it was stripped out on the Senate side.
  Mr. Speaker, we have come together time and time again as a body to 
move this commonsense regulatory reform forward. It is my great hope 
that I will get support from both sides of the aisle again today not 
just on this rule, but on the underlying legislation, and that we will 
move forward in a bipartisan way again.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin as well and echo what Mr. Woodall said in 
praising Brian Cooper for his many decades of service to this body. We 
appreciate all of his years of service. We appreciate all of the years 
he drove back and forth to work from Baltimore. And we appreciate the 
incredible patience that he has demonstrated over the years by having 
to listen to us time and time again.
  One of the great joys of serving in this body is that you meet some 
remarkable people. Brian Cooper is certainly a remarkable person, and 
he will be missed. And I think on behalf of everybody here, we want to 
say: thank you.
  Mr. Speaker, let me rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the 
underlying legislation.
  My colleague, Mr. Woodall, just referenced all of the times we passed 
it, it went over to the Senate, and it didn't go anywhere. Maybe we 
should take a hint from the Senate that it is not a good bill and we 
ought to kind of reconsider some of the aspects of this bill.
  But here we are again on the House floor with yet another regulatory 
rollback. It is shameful that the leadership of this House continues to 
waste precious time on bills that seem to address the concerns of Big 
Industry over the needs of our constituents, especially as we have so 
much that needs to be accomplished.
  By the way, whatever happened to regular order? Do you remember when 
committees held hearings and markups?
  The Agriculture Committee, on which I serve, did not hold a hearing. 
It held a markup, but it did not hold a hearing. And the Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee, the committee with primary jurisdiction 
over this bill, held no hearing and did no markup.
  And let's talk about amendments. The majority made in order less than 
half of the amendments submitted--two amendments--but they blocked 
through completely germane amendments. Members jumped through all of 
the hoops, they dotted all of the Is, and they crossed all of the Ts. 
These were properly drafted amendments, and they were blocked because 
the Republican majority was afraid to vote on them.
  Now, what were these amendments?
  Well, an amendment to prohibit the discharge of toxics in such 
circumstances where they would be harmful to pregnant women or harm 
fetal or early childhood development. The amendment protects pregnant 
women and children. Blocked.
  An amendment to create an exception for communities that use a source 
of drinking water where a Federal or State emergency declaration has 
been issued due to a threat to public health, such as heightened 
exposure to an identified contaminant. Blocked.
  An amendment to ensure existing Clean Water Act protections apply to 
waters that a State has already determined are polluted by pesticides. 
Blocked.
  They were blocked because they would have passed.
  Why are my colleagues afraid of protecting pregnant women, and 
ensuring clean drinking water?
  That is what these amendments were about. They were germane. The only 
reason why they are not in order is because you chose to block them in 
the Rules Committee.

[[Page 8253]]

  I would say to my Republican friends: You are not running this 
institution. You are ruining this institution. This is supposed to be a 
deliberative body. Let's start acting like it. And that means bringing 
germane amendments to the floor, letting us have a debate, letting 
Republicans and Democrats debate, and then vote on those amendments.
  There is not a single reason at all other than the fact that the 
Republican leadership did not want these amendments to pass that they 
were not made in order. That is not the way this place is supposed to 
work.
  And speaking of a bad process, late last week, Billy House at 
Bloomberg News broke the news that the House may need to vote again on 
this devastating TrumpCare bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the article by Billy House.

                 [From www.bloomberg.com, May 18, 2017]

       House May Need To Vote Again on GOP Obamacare Repeal Bill

                            (By Billy House)

       House Republicans barely managed to pass their Obamacare 
     repeal bill earlier this month, and they now face the 
     possibility of having to vote again on their controversial 
     health measure.
       House Speaker Paul Ryan hasn't yet sent the bill to the 
     Senate because there's a chance that parts of it may need to 
     be redone, depending on how the Congressional Budget Office 
     estimates its effects. House leaders want to make sure the 
     bill conforms with Senate rules for reconciliation, a 
     mechanism that allows Senate Republicans to pass the bill 
     with a simple majority.
       Republicans had rushed to vote on the health bill so the 
     Senate could get a quick start on it, even before the CBO had 
     finished analyzing a series of last-minute changes. The CBO 
     is expected to release an updated estimate next week.
       ``Unaware,'' said Representative Jeff Denham of California, 
     with noticeable surprise Thursday, when advised that his 
     party leaders still hadn't sent the bill over to the Senate. 
     Denham was one of the House Republicans who ended up voting 
     for the measure, after earlier in the week opposing it.
       ``I am on the whip team and we have a lot of conversations, 
     but we have not had that one. So I am going to look into 
     it,'' said Denham, a member of the party's vote-counting 
     team.


                          Downplaying Concern

       One senior GOP aide downplayed any concern over the 
     potential trouble from the CBO report, depicting it as 
     hypothetical, and saying that leaders will cross that bridge 
     if they need to.
       According to several aides and other procedural experts, if 
     Republicans send the bill to the Senate now and the CBO later 
     concludes it doesn't save at least $2 billion, it would doom 
     the bill and Republicans would have to start their repeal 
     effort all over with a new budget resolution. Congressional 
     rules would likely prevent Republicans from fixing the bill 
     after it's in the Senate, the aides said.
       In the Senate, the bill must hit separate $1 billion 
     deficit reduction targets in the jurisdiction of the Finance 
     Committee and the chamber's health committee. Republican 
     aides said failing to meet those numbers would force the 
     House to fix the bill even if the legislation meets the 
     overall cost-savings target.
       If Republican leaders hold onto the bill until the CBO 
     report is released, then Ryan and his team could still redo 
     it if necessary. That would require at least one more House 
     vote of some sort.
       Ryan told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt on Friday 
     that he doesn't think the House will need to vote again on 
     the health law. ``We just want to, out of an abundance of 
     caution, wait to send the bill over to the Senate when we get 
     the final score,'' Ryan said.
       That vote could be cloaked in some kind of arcane 
     procedural move, but it would still be depicted as a proxy 
     for yet another vote on the same bill--and reluctant 
     Republicans will once again be forced to decide whether to 
     back it. Only this time, they would also be saddled with the 
     CBO's latest findings about the bill's costs and impacts.
       Republicans had a sizable deficit reduction cushion--$150 
     billion--before several amendments were added to the bill at 
     the last minute, including changes allowing states to 
     legalize much skimpier health insurance plans.


                           Budget Assumptions

       It's unclear what assumptions the CBO will make about what 
     states will do with that newly created flexibility. If 
     millions of people sign up for much cheaper, minimal 
     insurance, that could trigger billions--and potentially even 
     hundreds of billions--in costs over a decade because of the 
     House bill's health insurance tax credits.
       ``We've got to wait for the CBO score,'' said Greg Walden 
     of Oregon, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce 
     Committee, which authored much of the bill. ``To prove that 
     you meet the reconciliation test.''
       But other senior Republicans weren't aware that leaders had 
     been holding onto the bill.
       ``I had no idea,'' Dennis Ross of Florida, another member 
     of the vote-counting team, said Thursday, adding that the 
     prospect of another vote ``does concern me.''
       GOP leaders never said publicly they were planning to hold 
     on to the bill for two weeks or longer.


                          Democrats' Criticism

       ``Every school child knows that when you pass a bill in the 
     House, you send it to the Senate,'' said Louise Slaughter, 
     the ranking Democrat on the House Rules Committee. ``You 
     don't hide it in a drawer somewhere for two weeks, while you 
     wait for information that you should have had before you 
     passed it.''
       The speaker and other Republicans urgently pushed their May 
     4 floor vote, despite a polarized Republican conference, 
     using the frantic final hours to win over holdouts. Even so, 
     20 Republicans still voted against the bill. After the bill 
     squeaked through, Ryan and other senior Republicans dashed to 
     the White House for an unusual celebration of a one-chamber 
     vote.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure everyone understands 
that. We thought we were through with it here in the House, but we may 
not be. After Republicans used emergency procedures on more than one 
occasion to rush their bill through the House of Representatives, we 
found out that Republican leaders had yet to send a bill over to the 
Senate for its consideration. Instead, they have been hiding the bill 
for nearly 3 weeks.
  What happened to the urgency that my colleagues were talking about a 
few weeks ago?
  We heard from our Republican friends that the sky would fall if we 
didn't act upon TrumpCare immediately. It had to be done right then and 
there. We couldn't slow down long enough to hear from the nonpartisan 
experts at the Congressional Budget Office. We couldn't slow down 
enough so that people could actually read what was in the bill. We 
couldn't slow down enough to do hearings or to get estimates on how 
this massive bill would impact the healthcare of millions of Americans.
  I think it has become clear to all of us, Mr. Speaker, that the only 
reason to rush through this process was to trick their own Members into 
voting for this disastrous bill. It was to keep their Members from 
seeing the CBO score before they voted for the bill, because if they 
had seen it, many of them may not have voted for it. Republican 
leadership couldn't risk transparency, and they wouldn't let the facts 
get in the way of passing TrumpCare.
  We expect CBO to release their final analysis tomorrow. Finally, we 
will know how many millions of Americans will be kicked off of their 
healthcare because of these reckless and heartless Republican policies. 
We will find out how devastating this bill will be for millions of 
Americans with preexisting conditions. And we will finally learn just 
how big that tax cut for wealthy Americans is going to be.
  I guess my question to Republican leaders of this House is: What was 
the rush? If you were going to have to hold up the bill over here until 
the CBO score was released anyway, why couldn't we just have waited to 
receive this very important information before we asked the House to 
vote on this terrible bill?
  Oh, wait. I know why the Republican leadership needed to move 
TrumpCare so fast, so that the bill's namesake--President Trump--didn't 
throw a temper tantrum. That is what this was all about. So he wouldn't 
call them out in one of his infamous Twitter rants.

                              {time}  1245

  But it wasn't about good legislating. It was a lousy process 
basically designed to prematurely shove a bill through that is bad for 
Americans, all for some headline or temporary political gain.
  Now, if you have been watching the news lately, you will notice that 
our 45th President hasn't been generating the best headlines, what with 
``this Russia thing''--those are his words--constant leaks of 
information from his staff to the press, never mind the President's 
leaking of sensitive classified information on national security 
matters.
  President Trump needed a win for himself, even if it is a loss for 
the

[[Page 8254]]

American people. As we all know, it is all about him.
  Now, I remind my Republican colleagues that they work for the 
American people, that the ultimate boss for all of us is our 
constituents, not the President of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has made a habit of completely 
skirting regular order and rushing through legislation crafted behind 
closed doors with no opportunity for meaningful debate and 
consideration, and this TrumpCare bill is a prime example.
  We had emergency meetings, backroom deals, and fixes to the fixes to 
the fixes, and what we were left with is a lousy product that we may 
have to consider again. My Republican colleagues should be ashamed of 
themselves.
  Process matters. We are on the Rules Committee. If you don't believe 
process matters, you ought to get on a different committee. It matters 
for the integrity of this institution, and it matters if we are to 
prevent lousy legislation.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say a few words about the Trump budget 
that was just released this morning.
  We are still digging through the text and combing through the 
details, but from what we have already seen, it is devastating. Reports 
indicate that this budget makes the deepest cuts to Federal programs 
that help the most vulnerable, the poorest of the poor. Mr. Speaker, 
that is nothing to be proud of.
  At a time when our crumbling infrastructure needs repair, our kids 
need access to affordable education, and our workers need training to 
move into high-tech jobs, we simply cannot afford to turn our back on 
these critical investments that will move our country forward. But this 
budget plan does just that.
  Since we are on the floor to talk about an antienvironment bill 
today, I should note that the Environmental Protection Agency is among 
the agencies hardest hit by President Trump's ruthless proposal. 
Through massive cuts to the EPA, the Trump administration is paving the 
way toward dirtier air and more polluted water. But my Republican 
colleagues don't seem to be too concerned with that. They have been 
proposing cuts to EPA for years and years and years.
  Mr. Speaker, of all the rotten provisions tucked into this document--
and I could go on and on and on--I find the most troubling to be the 
radical assault on people living in poverty.
  You know, it is easy to sit in an office at OMB and concoct plans to 
throw people off of SNAP and off of Medicaid and kick them out of their 
housing. This plan does just that. By any reading, by any measure, that 
is what it does. We are reading about a $274 billion cut to our safety 
net, on top of the over $800 billion cut to Medicaid included in the 
TrumpCare bill.
  These are real people, Mr. Speaker. They are our constituents. They 
are our neighbors and our friends. Our kids go to school together.
  But given some of the proposals I have seen from this majority party, 
I have to wonder whether some of my colleagues might never have talked 
with anyone living in poverty. I would say to them, life is very 
different when you leave your country club. Life is very different. It 
is very hard for people struggling in poverty. Being poor in this 
country is hard work, and you ought to know that by now.
  My Republican colleagues have made a habit of belittling the poor 
instead of trying to understand their struggles. They work hard, Mr. 
Speaker--often at more than one job--to put food on the table for their 
kids and to find a roof over their heads. They are exhausted from work 
and from worry.
  We see them every day, serving tables, washing dishes, hauling away 
trash, cleaning offices, mowing lawns, stacking heavy loads, taking 
care of people's children, comforting the sick. Theirs are the faces in 
the bus windows going home from work at 2 in the morning. Theirs are 
the faces arriving at work at 5 in the morning the next day. They 
deserve our respect, not the disdain shown to them and to their 
families in this disgraceful budget.
  I would like to remind my colleagues that poverty and hunger in rural 
areas is often as bad as, and sometimes even worse than, in cities. So 
I find it highly offensive that this budget slashes our safety net for 
the very people that President Trump promised to protect, the very 
people who put President Trump in office.
  You know, I heard some of the rationale for this budget from the 
White House, saying: Well, you know, people who are on SNAP ought to 
work.
  Well, let me just say for the Record so it is clear to everybody here 
that the majority of people on SNAP are children, are senior citizens, 
are people who are disabled. Of those who can work, a majority of them 
work. They work, but they earn so little that they are still stuck in 
poverty.
  Why aren't we having a debate about increasing wages in this country? 
Why is the debate focused on how we make the lives of those in poverty 
even more miserable?
  You know, budgets are moral documents, and this is the most 
heartless, reckless, and damaging plan I have ever seen. It is immoral.
  The President's Budget Director talked yesterday about compassion for 
taxpayers and for Trump supporters. Well, give me a break. You know, I 
would tell Mr. Mulvaney I don't think that word means what he think it 
means.
  Compassion, that is feeding starving children, helping a father get 
back on his feet after a job loss, helping a mother get back on her 
feet after a job loss, cleaning up poisoned water, ensuring everyone 
has a chance at living a healthy life regardless of how much money they 
have. That is compassion, not turning our backs on these people.
  Tax cuts for the wealthiest among us at the expense of the public 
safety net is cruel. It is coldhearted and, Mr. Speaker, I am sick of 
it. I assure you that is not compassionate.
  So I hope my Republican colleagues will have the courage to stand up 
against this administration and do what is right for the American 
people.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from Massachusetts 
I do not have any speakers remaining, and I reserve the balance of my 
time to close.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Throughout his campaign, President Trump made promises that he would 
not cut Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. Now we have come to 
find out that he has broken every one of those promises.
  The Trump budget includes more than $800 billion in Medicaid cuts in 
the GOP healthcare bill and then adds additional cuts on top of that, 
with total Medicaid cuts of over $1 trillion over the next 10 years.
  Furthermore, the Trump budget guts Social Security disability 
insurance which, as of 2015, covered 10 million recipients.
  The Trump budget also slashes funding for SNAP, our Nation's first 
line of defense against hunger, by $193 billion. That is a 25 percent 
cut. SNAP is the program that provides people food. That's it--food.
  We have 42 million people in this country who are food insecure--42 
million. We should all be ashamed of that. And the answer is to cut 
SNAP by 25 percent?
  Oh, and by the way, the average SNAP benefit is $1.40 per person per 
meal.
  And let's not forget that the Republicans' healthcare disaster takes 
$75 billion out of the Medicare trust fund, shortening the life of the 
trust fund.
  Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. WOODALL. I appreciate that. I would like to inquire of the 
Speaker: Is my friend from Massachusetts working on my yielded time or 
is he working on his time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is on his own time.
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend.
  Mr. McGOVERN. If the gentleman wants to yield me some of his time, I 
am more than happy to go on for as long as you would like.
  Mr. WOODALL. If my friend would yield, I was advised that I had 
yielded

[[Page 8255]]

an abundance of time. I just wanted to make sure that I was not being 
more generous than you and I would have intended.
  Mr. McGOVERN. So, Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that, instead of 
protecting our most vulnerable, President Trump and the House 
Republicans continually insist on tax breaks for big corporations and 
the wealthiest Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to hold President Trump to his word. Therefore, 
I am asking that we defeat the previous question. If we defeat the 
previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would 
change the rules of the House to prevent any legislation from being 
considered if it would result in a reduction of guaranteed benefits 
under the Social Security Act, if it would increase either the early or 
full retirement age to receive Social Security benefits.
  This would prevent any legislation from being considered if it would 
privatize Social Security. We would prevent any legislation from being 
considered that would result in a reduction of guaranteed benefits for 
individuals entitled to or enrolled for benefits under Medicare or 
result in a reduction of benefits or eligibility for individuals 
enrolled in or eligible to receive medical assistance through a State 
Medicaid plan or waiver.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
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 Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just simply say to my colleagues 
that I urge everybody in this House to remember why we came to Congress 
and who sent us here. Our primary obligation is to the people of this 
country, and they did not send us here to make their lives more 
miserable.
  When you look at the priorities in the President's budget, when you 
look at the impact that the healthcare bill, the TrumpCare bill that 
the House of Representatives passed, when you look at the impact it is 
going to have on tens of millions of Americans in this country, these 
bills will devastate people.
  So we need to get back to what is important. It is not about propping 
up the President during his difficulties. It is not about playing to 
the cheap seats at the Heritage Foundation or some other rightwing 
think tank. Our primary obligation is to people of the United States. 
This budget and the priorities of this Republican majority and the 
priorities of this President undercut the security and the economic 
well-being of every single person in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the 
previous question and a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to recognize that, if you locked my friend from Massachusetts 
and me in a room together, it would be over both of our objections, but 
we would be able to solve about 50 percent of the challenges that face 
this country.
  There is something different that happens in conversation and 
dialogue when the cameras are turned off than happens when the cameras 
are on, and of course we are going to keep these cameras here on the 
floor of the House for as long as you and I are here because the 
American people have a right to see and a right to know.
  But just like Mom and Dad don't want to have all their conversations 
in front of the kids, and the kids certainly don't want to have all of 
their conversations in front of Mom and Dad, there is a role to be 
played for folks to be able to close the door and sit down and visit 
with each other and try to make things better.
  My friend from Massachusetts is absolutely right. The only job that 
we have is to make a difference for our constituency back home. 
Sometimes we legitimately disagree on how to do that. The budget is a 
good example.
  You will remember, Mr. Speaker, President Obama, in his 8 years as 
President of the United States, never once introduced a budget that 
balanced. He borrowed from our children and our grandchildren in every 
single budget.
  And when I say he didn't introduce a budget that balanced, I don't 
mean that he didn't balance in year 1, I don't mean he didn't balance 
in year 10. I mean never, ever, ever looking forward in his budgets did 
he ever stop borrowing.
  Mr. Speaker, there is not a man or woman in this institution who 
believes that you can run a country that way. There is not one. There 
is not a man or woman in this institution who doesn't understand that 
balancing budgets is going to mean hard decisions, and so it is 
absolutely the right place for the dialog about what those hard 
decisions should be.
  But let us not be confused for one moment. There is no pathway to 
balance that isn't hard. Borrowing from your children and your 
grandchildren to pay for what you want today is always going to be 
easier, Mr. Speaker, than paying for it yourself. We are going to have 
to have that conversation.
  I agree with my friend from Massachusetts. We do not work for the 
President of the United States in this institution. If anything, he 
works for us.
  I sit on the House Budget Committee, Mr. Speaker, and I promise you, 
we are promulgating our own House budget, a work product that is going 
to make this institution proud. I am particularly pleased to be working 
with Budget Committee Chairwoman Diane Black on that budget, even as we 
speak.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Speaker, it will balance by making commonsense changes to Federal 
programs, one of which is included in this bill here today.
  Take the EPA, for example. Mr. Speaker, I encourage you, if you have 
not read the comments of our new EPA Administrator, to get into those 
because what he would tell you, which is absolutely true, is that we 
have Superfund sites in this country that are so polluted they cannot 
be utilized for other purposes.
  They have been on the Superfund list for decades through Republican 
Presidents and through Democratic Presidents. They have been sitting on 
that list. There is no plan to clean them up, no plan to make a 
difference in those communities, and no plan to serve those 
constituencies. That is wrong.
  Instead of spending its time and resources making a difference for 
families, making a difference for the environment, what is the EPA 
having to do?
  Respond to court cases that tell it to treat the reasonable and 
labeled application of pesticides; not as spraying pesticides in your 
field, but as if you were operating a factory and just having as an 
effluent, pesticide flowing out of your factory. That is just nonsense.
  The reason we produced pesticides is to spray it in fields. We do not 
need an effluent discharge permit as if we are running a factory, 
pumping it into our streams. We are not. We are spraying it on our 
plants to do what?
  Address the food needs of this Nation.
  My friend from Massachusetts is absolutely right when he talks about 
hunger in this Nation, Mr. Speaker. He is absolutely right. I dare say 
that there is not a community in this country that is not affected by 
hunger. But the biggest advocate we have in the fight against hunger is 
the American farmer, Mr. Speaker.
  There is nobody in the world who does it better; there is nobody in 
the world who produces it cheaper; there is nobody in the world that 
has the capability of producing the food to go on the grocery store 
shelves in America except the American farmer. And these pesticides and 
herbicides make a difference in getting that food out of the field and 
onto those store shelves.
  We want to do it with strict EPA regulation. That is what is lost in 
this debate. There is not one Member of this body that wants to repeal 
EPA regulation. We want to keep that EPA regulation. It is called 
FIFRA, that regulation that pesticides are regulated

[[Page 8256]]

under. No one wants to change that at all.
  All folks want to do is say: Wait a minute, this is not a factory 
discharge issue. This is a pesticide issue.
  My friend from Massachusetts is absolutely right. I sit on the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Speaker. We did not 
have a hearing or a markup on this bill, and it was absolutely referred 
to our committee.
  Why, Mr. Speaker?
  It was referred to our committee because we have jurisdiction over 
the Clean Water Act, but this has never been a Clean Water Act issue, 
except the courts tried to make it one. This has never been a Clean 
Water Act issue, except the litigants tried to make it one. So when we 
tried to fix the problem, we didn't waste a moment in the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee dealing with the Clean 
Water Act because this has never been a Clean Water Act issue. It is an 
ag issue, which is why it went through my friend of Massachusetts' 
Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't begrudge anyone the job that they have to do in 
this institution. We have different constituencies. They ask different 
things of us. We all have to come and do our work. But I will tell you 
what, Mr. Speaker, everything doesn't have to be an us-against-them 
battle. Sometimes it is just about us. Sometimes there is more that 
unites this country than divides this country, and that is okay. 
Sometimes we are able to work together on commonsense solutions, and 
that is okay.
  Mr. Speaker, when this bill came to the House under suspension of the 
rules, again, that process that we use for things that are 
noncontroversial, my friend from Massachusetts supported it at that 
time. He supported it because it is good legislation that is going to 
make a difference for folks back home. It is going to make a difference 
in combating hunger in every jurisdiction across this Nation.
  When this bill went through the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Speaker, 
there were no amendments offered. The Agriculture Committee is composed 
of Republicans and Democrats. It is a place where discussion takes 
place. It was the markup of this bill, which is when you go and try to 
amend it and make it better. Not one amendment was offered from either 
side.
  Why?
  Because we have discussed this issue, we have litigated this issue, 
and we have worked together on this issue, and it is a collaborative 
work product.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman that a 
number of amendments that are germane were offered in the Rules 
Committee to protect the health and safety of women and children, and 
they were not made in order. So amendments were offered and they were 
blocked. I just point that out for the Record.
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend. He is absolutely right. When the 
experts on the Agriculture Committee considered this, when the folks 
who spend their entire careers on Capitol Hill working on pesticide and 
pesticide safety considered this, they had absolutely no amendments to 
offer whatsoever.
  When it came to the Rules Committee and the entire House could offer 
amendments, folks absolutely offered amendments. The Rules Committee, 
on which the gentleman from Massachusetts and I serve, made two of 
those amendments in order. We rejected others. You heard my friend's 
opening statement, Mr. Speaker, that one of the amendments we rejected 
was to protect pregnant women.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, for Pete's sake, I have served with these men and 
women in here. I have been in this body for 6 years. There is not one 
Member of this institution who doesn't care about pregnant women. There 
is not one Member of this institution who doesn't care about children. 
There is not one Member of this institution who doesn't care. What we 
do in this institution is care. And when my friend from Massachusetts 
supported this bill, when he supported this bill, there were no 
amendments along those lines.
  When the gentleman supported this bill without the amendment dealing 
particularly with pregnant women and children, I don't believe for a 
moment the gentleman forgot about those pregnant women and children. I 
don't believe for a moment he decided he was going to punish pregnant 
women and children. I believe that he thought those protections were 
inherent in the base text, and he was right when he thought it, and he 
was right when he supported it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I would just say that the bill has changed over the 
years, and I voted against it in committee.
  I guess the question is: If we are all in agreement that we want to 
protect women and children, what was the harm in making in order an 
amendment that would have done that?
  It was perfectly germane, and the Rules Committee decided not to make 
it in order. I think that is a question that the gentleman hasn't 
answered.
  I appreciate that all the people on the Agriculture Committee are 
experts, but you know what?
  There are other people who know a lot about science, pesticides, and 
agriculture who were not on the committee. And just because a committee 
takes action--I mean, if that is the new rule now: if you are on the 
committee, you can't offer amendments. Well, that is an unfortunate new 
approach that the Republicans are taking.
  Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, I will tell my friend two things 
that he already knows. Number one is we do accept amendments from the 
entire Congress. That is the purpose of the Rules Committee being in 
existence, and we have added two amendments to this bill for 
consideration.
  When the gentleman supported it in the 112th Congress, we considered 
no other amendments. That is a change this time. We are going to do 
that. When it passed the last time we did a rule, no one offered any 
amendments. This is a change from that time. When we passed it in the 
Agriculture bill, no one offered any amendments. So it is a change this 
time. We absolutely are opening up the process more and more with every 
time the House considers this bill.
  But I would also tell my friend something that we are going to have 
to grapple with as an institution, and that is that I don't need a 
Rules Committee if what we are going to do is make every amendment that 
comes to this institution in order.
  The only reason we have a Rules Committee is to pick and choose. The 
only reason we have a Rules Committee is to set up a timetable on which 
we can debate and consider things in a reasonable manner. The only 
reason we have a Rules Committee is because we are not operating under 
unanimous consent as our friends in the Senate do, though we absolutely 
could. And I would refer him to my friend, Daniel Webster, who has some 
marvelous ideas about how we might do that.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I think it is legitimate for folks back home to 
wonder what is going on in that United States House. They passed it in 
a bipartisan way once. They passed it in a bipartisan way twice. They 
passed it in a bipartisan way three times, and here it is on the floor 
today, and it is as if the sky is falling and going to open up and 
swallow everything that is good and decent about this land.
  Why is that, Mr. Speaker? Why is that the conversation we are having 
today instead of the one we had not once, not twice, but three times 
about how we could use this legislation to improve the lives of 
citizens across this country?
  Perhaps that is just the environment we are in. Perhaps that is just 
the cards we have been dealt in politics across America today, Mr. 
Speaker, but we have a chance together as an institution to stand up 
and say it does not have to be that way. We have a chance together to 
stand up and say

[[Page 8257]]

that we can do better than those partisan shenanigans. We can get 
together on things that are going to make a difference, and the first 
opportunity you are going to have after this speech, Mr. Speaker, to do 
that, is in supporting the rule for this bill. The first opportunity we 
are going to have to do that is in supporting this rule, and then 
supporting the underlying legislation and sending it back to the Senate 
one more time. It is the right thing to do, Mr. Speaker, and we have 
the opportunity to do that together.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for the rule and the underlying 
bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

       An Amendment To Be Offered to H. Res. 348 by Mr. McGovern

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 2. Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new clause:


 RESTRICTIONS ON CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION THAT WOULD BREAK DONALD 
   TRUMP'S PROMISE NOT TO CUT SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, OR MEDICAID

       13. (a) It shall not be in order to consider a bill, joint 
     resolution, motion, amendment, amendment between the Houses, 
     or conference report which includes any provision described 
     in paragraph (b).''
       (b) A provision referred to in paragraph (a) is a provision 
     which, if enacted into law, would result in any of the 
     following:
       (1) a reduction of guaranteed benefits scheduled under 
     title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.);
       (2) an increase in either the early or full retirement age 
     for the benefits described in paragraph (1);
       (3) a privatization of Social Security;
       (4) a reduction of guaranteed benefits for individuals 
     entitled to, or enrolled for, benefits under the Medicare 
     program under title XVIII of 18 such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et 
     seq.); or
       (5) a reduction of benefits or eligibility for individuals 
     enrolled in, or eligible to receive medical assistance 
     through, a State Medicaid plan or waiver under title XIX of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 5 et seq.).
       (c) It shall not be in order to consider a rule or order 
     that waives the application of paragraph (a). As disposition 
     of any point of order under paragraph (a) or this paragraph 
     (except a point of order against an amendment pursuant to 
     paragraph (a)), the Chair shall put the question of 
     consideration with respect to the measure, order, conference 
     report, or rule as applicable. The question of consideration 
     shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the Member initiating 
     the point of order and for 10 minutes by an opponent, but 
     shall otherwise be decided without intervening motion except 
     one that the House adjourn.
                                  ____


        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. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts will state 
his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Again, hearing the gentleman say that we all want to 
protect the lives of pregnant women and children, I just want to ask as 
an inquiry: Is the amendment by Eddie Bernice Johnson that prohibits 
the discharge of toxins in such circumstances where they would be 
harmful to pregnant women, or could harm fetal, or early childhood 
development, which is perfectly germane, is that made in order? Is that 
part of the rule?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is free to consult the Rules 
Committee report.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Well, I don't think it is. I would just simply say to 
the gentleman, if he wants more cooperation, then maybe we ought to 
open the process up, and actually listen to what the Democrats have to 
say too.
  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. McGOVERN. 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 229, 
nays 191, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 271]

                               YEAS--229

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul

[[Page 8258]]


     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--191

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Black
     Deutch
     Hice, Jody B.
     Huizenga
     Johnson, Sam
     Newhouse
     Roybal-Allard
     Simpson
     Tiberi
     Wasserman Schultz

                              {time}  1333

  Mr. CRIST and Mrs. DINGELL changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 271.


 MOMENT OF SILENCE IN MEMORY OF THE VICTIMS OF THE TERRORIST ATTACK IN 
                          MANCHESTER, ENGLAND

  The SPEAKER. The Chair would ask that all present rise for a moment 
of silence.
  The Chair asks that the House now observe a moment of silence in 
memory of the victims of the terrorist attack in Manchester, England.
  Without objection, 5-minute voting will continue.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232, 
noes 189, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 272]

                               AYES--232

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--189

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan

[[Page 8259]]


     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Black
     Deutch
     Gaetz
     Hice, Jody B.
     Huizenga
     Johnson, Sam
     Newhouse
     Tiberi
     Wasserman Schultz

                              {time}  1342

  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.

                          ____________________