[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9712-9720]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2842, ACCELERATING INDIVIDUALS INTO 
   THE WORKFORCE ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO 
                           SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 396 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 396

       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. 2842) to provide for the conduct of 
     demonstration projects to test the effectiveness of 
     subsidized employment for TANF recipients. 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 Ways and Means. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways 
     and Means now printed in the bill, 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 
     115-22. 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.
       Sec. 2.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of June 22, 2017, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules, as though 
     under clause 1 of rule XV, relating to the bill (H.R. 2353) 
     to reauthorize the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 
     Education Act of 2006.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 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 Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule for consideration of a very important measure. The 
resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 2842, Accelerating 
Individuals into the Workforce Act.

                              {time}  1230

  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2842 is a commonsense proposal to help transition 
welfare recipients into steady, paying jobs. Moving welfare recipients 
into work is a central goal of TANF, the Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families program. This bipartisan bill would incentivize employers to 
hire TANF recipients and help subsidize these new employees' salaries 
for up to a year to allow them to transition into the workforce.
  The policy idea behind H.R. 2842 is simple: under this bill, States 
can establish partnerships with employers to hire recipients of TANF 
dollars. Through these partnerships, employers would receive a subsidy 
of up to 50 percent of the wage for a TANF recipient while the other 50 
percent would be paid by the employer.
  Beneficiaries would have to meet three requirements: they must be a 
TANF recipient, they must be unemployed, and they must have an income 
of 20 percent or less of the Federal poverty level. H.R. 2842 will 
direct our resources to the neediest individuals and families to help 
them accelerate these welfare recipients back into the workforce.
  Mr. Speaker, President Ronald Reagan once noted: ``We should measure 
welfare's success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many 
people are added.''
  The legislation under consideration in today's rule is a fulfillment 
of that promise. Under H.R. 2842, State and local governments will be 
able to better utilize their TANF dollars to help move individuals into 
paying work and eventually help them transition out of the welfare 
system altogether.
  Helping people get back to work is a great deal for the individuals 
who will be helped under this program, for the employers, for the 
economy, and for the American people. This bill is, at its core, about 
helping unemployed Americans get back to work.
  Mr. Speaker, we are a nation filled with hardworking people, and I 
have seen over and over again how badly many of the unemployed want to 
return to work. Many, if not most, recipients of TANF are in the 
program not because they want to be, but because they have been forced 
to be by circumstance. These unemployed Americans want nothing more 
than to return to the dignity of the workforce as quickly as they are 
able to do so. This bill will help remove barriers to employment and 
will incentivize employers to hire current TANF recipients.
  Workers re-entering the workforce is a good thing for society. Not 
only will workers who receive jobs under this program be taken off of 
welfare rolls, thus ensuring the continued success of that program, but 
these new workers will be better able to contribute to better lives for 
themselves, for their families, and for their communities.
  Here in Washington, we too often describe policy solutions as being 
``commonsense'' or ``win-win,'' but in this case it is absolutely true. 
H.R. 2842 is a commonsense solution and is a win-win for everyone 
involved: the workers, the employers, the community, and the country.
  That is why this legislation will receive a substantial bipartisan 
vote tomorrow. Whatever their differences, Republicans and Democrats 
alike want to put unemployed people back to

[[Page 9713]]

work. This bill will actually succeed in doing that.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule and the underlying 
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Oklahoma for yielding to me 
the customary 30 minutes for debate.
  This measure is a bipartisan bill that will help Americans receiving 
support from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families find good-
paying jobs.
  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are more than 6 
million job openings in our country. That is the highest level recorded 
since we started tracking this data, yet the share of Americans 
participating in the workforce is at a four-decade low. Clearly, there 
are underlying issues that need to be addressed to get more people 
plugged into the workforce.
  For people looking for jobs, TANF serves as a lifeline. TANF is 
administered by the Department of Health and Human Services and is 
designed to help in-need families achieve self-sufficiency. Under the 
program, States receive block grants to design and operate their own 
programs to fulfill the goals of the TANF program.
  It is important to note that States are at risk of financial penalty 
if TANF participants receive more than a year of education or if States 
have more than 30 percent of the State TANF caseload in education and 
training programs. Due to these limits, States have largely abandoned 
efforts to promote or support work in their TANF programs. This is 
important to understand because one of the most effective ways to get 
more people employed is through employer-driven on-the-job training.
  Research has shown that, properly structured, these programs result 
in better and more stable employment, especially for individuals who 
are otherwise unlikely to find work.
  Although the measure we are debating today does not address this 
issue, this bill will help tip the scale back toward job-training 
programs. H.R. 2842 establishes demonstration projects that combine 
work, training, and support for hard-to-employ TANF recipients.
  This bill provides a onetime appropriation of $100 million to 
subsidize these programs. After the 12-month period, States are going 
to be required to report to Congress on the effectiveness of 
subsidizing wages in moving individuals receiving TANF into full-time 
jobs.
  Since we are talking about jobs, we need to recognize that we as an 
institution have not provided the necessary resources to get people 
back to work. If you were to ask any Member of this body to outline his 
or her top priorities, I guarantee you that job creation would be 
mentioned every single time. We all agree on the need, but from there, 
the conversation stops. There are lots of proposals in Congress to 
create jobs, but we have been unable to pass a large-scale, bipartisan 
bill for quite some time. This really needs to change.
  Given the legislation we are debating today, it is interesting to me 
that President Donald John Trump's budget proposal cut workforce 
training programs by 39 percent. Rather than present a jobs bill, he 
has presented a plan that would actually stop helping people looking 
for jobs. That, in my judgment, is penny-wise and pound-foolish. In 
bringing forward this legislation, I think it is being made clear that 
this body does not share that approach, but we need to do more than a 
single, targeted bill.
  Five months into the Trump administration, Republican leadership 
still has not put forward a single large-scale piece of legislation to 
create good-paying jobs or raise the wages of hardworking Americans, 
but its leadership has rejected Democratic proposals out of hand.
  We should be working every day on creating jobs and raising wages for 
everyone everywhere in America. But instead of focusing on job 
creation, Donald John Trump's budget request would destroy 
approximately 1.4 million jobs.
  His budget would eviscerate billions of dollars from critical job-
creating investments in infrastructure and innovation, dismantle skills 
training programs like the one we are discussing here today, ransack 
education benefits, and leave our country in a weakened state. Instead 
of bringing jobs back to communities that have fallen on hard times, 
the budget walks away from them.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I will leave it at this. The underlying measure we 
are debating today is a good step forward. But one step is not nearly 
enough. We need to do more, not less, to strengthen our communities and 
help working families.
  Just as I urge Donald John Trump to move past the campaign rhetoric 
and get serious, I also urge this body to lead with more bipartisan 
measures that will provide for necessary resources for those who need 
them most.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by agreeing with my good friend on many 
of the points that he made. I was particularly struck by the point he 
made about the low participation rate in the labor force. That has been 
a problem that has been with us, quite frankly, for, as he pointed out, 
several decades, and it is one that has gotten worse.
  That is attributable in large part to another point that my friend 
made, effectively the thing around here we call the skills gap. We have 
literally millions of jobs available in this country, and employers are 
ready to hire people but they simply don't have the training.
  I couldn't agree more with my good friend that on-the-job training is 
sometimes the best training. You actually acquire the skill that you 
need to be successful, and the situation of this legislation will 
actually, again, offset the cost of that to the employer and, by the 
way, not add any cost to the taxpayer.
  That is something we ought to talk about as well. We are just taking 
money that we would have been spending anyway, and we are spending it a 
lot more productively.
  Now, my friend is right. This is a new program. This is a new 
approach. So trying it out for a year, spending $100 million--a lot of 
money--but obviously we would spend more this way if we would know this 
would be successful. But I can't help but think it will be successful.
  It is important to note that this bill is actually, again, 
exceptionally bipartisan. I was struck, as I hope my friend was, 
yesterday when we were in Rules Committee considering this legislation. 
We are used to seeing the members of the Ways and Means Committee come 
up and sort of fight in front of us. Instead, they actually came up arm 
in arm with a bipartisan proposal that they had agreed to that, again, 
is an excellent, excellent work.
  It is exactly the way that Congress should work, quite frankly: find 
common ground and advance commonsense solutions that make life better 
for the American people. In this case, at least, I think we have 
succeeded in doing that.
  It is also important to note that the rule authorizes the 
consideration of H.R. 2353, the so-called Perkins grant program. The 
Perkins grant is something we are pretty familiar with in Oklahoma. 
This is Federal money that moves into career tech systems that helps 
actually, again, workers acquire the necessary skills to be productive, 
quite often, again, working with the employer who has already got the 
jobs available. We then train the worker at a career tech system partly 
funded with Federal dollars, and that person is assured the job the day 
they walk out.
  I suspect that bill, like this bill, when it finally reaches the 
floor will also have substantial bipartisan support. I want to pledge 
to my good friend that we are going to continue to work together on 
things like this. I don't think anybody disagrees about putting 
Americans back to work. Workers would rather be at work than, frankly, 
just receiving government assistance and not able to go work. So this 
bill does that.
  I want to urge support of the rule and, again, the underlying 
legislation.

[[Page 9714]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Washington (Ms. DelBene), who is a distinguished member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for the 
underlying legislation, which includes my amendment expanding 
apprenticeships for American workers.
  I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for 
supporting this important effort in the Ways and Means Committee, and I 
look forward to its passage.
  We can all agree that helping people find long-term employment in a 
high-demand industry is one of the best ways to ensure that everyone 
has economic security. But technological advancements like automation 
and artificial intelligence are dramatically shifting the way our 
economy works, and these changes are only going to accelerate.
  We cannot allow American workers to be left behind. Congress needs to 
be forward looking, not reactive, in crafting policies that help 
workers who are displaced from the workforce. I believe that means we 
need a national commitment to addressing the skills gap and mitigating 
disruption in an evolving 21st century economy.
  Apprenticeships and on-the-job training are an important part of that 
equation. Apprenticeships can be an incredible opportunity for 
businesses and workers alike.

                              {time}  1245

  They allow employers to build a pipeline of qualified workers while 
equipping job seekers with the specific skills they need to find and 
keep good-paying jobs.
  Oftentimes, they provide skills that are portable and meaningful 
anywhere in the country, giving workers more freedom to transfer 
between companies and industries.
  In my home State of Washington, investments and apprenticeships have 
been shown to give a higher return on investment than any other job 
training program, returning $23 for each dollar that is invested.
  It is important to remember these investments not only have an 
incredible impact on our economy but also on people's lives by helping 
them become more self-sufficient through specialized training and 
increased earning potential.
  I appreciate my colleague's bipartisan support for this amendment, 
and I urge its passage in the underlying legislation.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Decades of experience tell us that the most effective antipoverty 
program is a job, and this bill helps low-income Americans earn success 
through the dignity of work.
  States actually, as my good friends on the other side know, spend 
very little of their TANF funding on moving people into jobs. Today, 
half of all TANF recipients are neither working nor preparing for work. 
This bill ensures that money only goes to those who are working, 
providing individuals with paychecks in lieu of benefit checks, a key 
tenet in welfare reform.
  This pilot only provides funding for one fiscal year, repurposing 
money that has already been appropriated and, frankly, using it in a 
better way than it was originally appropriated to achieve.
  The bill requires that States report on outcome measures and provide 
high-quality evaluations so that Congress can make appropriate 
decisions after we have actually seen the results yielded by the 
program.
  And finally, as we have been pointing out, but I think around here it 
is always worth pointing out multiple times, where actually CBO 
estimates the bill has no cost. So we are actually doing something good 
without increasing expenditures for the taxpayers, and, indeed, we are 
probably in the process of creating new taxpayers, people who can 
contribute to the wealth and the activity and the prosperity of the 
country; and people, honestly, who want to contribute to the wealth and 
the activity; and employers who want to provide people with an 
opportunity to improve themselves and become more productive.
  So it is a good bill all the way around, and, again, I will be urging 
the passage of the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  President Donald John Trump campaigned on the promise of job 
creation; however, his budget paints a very different picture. It cuts 
job training programs by 39 percent, and its radical spending cuts 
would lead to massive job losses.
  In this body, we talk a lot about jobs, but we are 6 months into this 
Congress and have failed to pass any major job creation bills. While 
the bipartisan legislation before us today is, indeed, as my good 
friend points out, a step in the right direction, we can and we must do 
more.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that I have an amendment in my 
hand that will generate thousands of American jobs. If we defeat the 
previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to 
bring up Representative DeFazio's bipartisan bill, H.R. 2510, the Water 
Quality Protection and Job Creation Act. This bill will create 
thousands of new American jobs through increased investment in our 
Nation's wastewater infrastructure. Here is a chance to take today's 
momentum a step further and consider Mr. DeFazio's bill in addition to 
the bipartisan TANF bill.
  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 Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my very good friend, the distinguished ranking 
member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee who will 
discuss our proposal.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this opportunity. 
As he noted, the President has talked and tweeted incessantly about 
creating jobs and infrastructure investment, but, unfortunately, the 
only substantive proposal to come out of the White House that relates 
to infrastructure, infrastructure investment, and jobs is in his 
budget, and it actually reduces Federal investment in infrastructure, 
which would basically eliminate jobs.
  So I mean, the bill before us today, bipartisan bill on 
apprenticeships is great, but you have got to apprentice for something 
that is real: a job in the end, construction.
  America is falling apart, and, right now, we have nothing but 
rhetoric coming out of the White House, and now ideology. They are 
talking about privatizing all of the infrastructure in the United 
States so that you will pay tolls everywhere you go, and, you know, 
they call it asset recycling. They have come up with a catchy new name. 
That has been floated, but they haven't put any substance behind it.
  So this amendment would allow the House to debate and pass H.R. 2510, 
Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2017. This bill would 
provide $25 billion in direct infrastructure investment over the next 5 
years to address America's crumbling wastewater infrastructure and 
local water quality challenges.
  The state of our water infrastructure, according to the American 
Society of Engineers' report card of 2017, is a D-plus. Meanwhile, 
municipalities across the country have a backlog of more than $40 
billion--B, billion--in clean water infrastructure projects, and, 
according to the EPA, communities need close to $300 billion over the 
next 20 years to bring their systems into a state of good repair.
  It is clear that we cannot continue to neglect the serious needs of 
our aging water infrastructure. As these systems fail and degrade, they 
pose a risk to the health and safety of our citizens and obviously the 
environment.

[[Page 9715]]

  I know the President promised, during his campaign, to make clean 
water a priority. I agree with that. He promised to triple funding for 
State revolving loan fund programs to help States and local governments 
upgrade critical drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.
  Well, here is a chance to deliver on that promise. H.R. 2510 does 
exactly that. It triples investment in America's crumbling water 
infrastructure.
  I was a county commissioner at a time when the Federal Government was 
a good partner, and, in those days, they put up 85 percent of the cost 
of our wastewater system. We put up the other 15. You know, this 
could--by renewing this legislation and a commitment to the State 
revolving loan fund programs and adding in a grant component for lower 
income areas, that could, you know, be a great step in terms of Federal 
partnership and creating actual jobs for the apprentices that this bill 
wants to create.
  There is widespread support for this legislation. I include in the 
Record letters of endorsement from 30 separate groups.

                                   Ohio Environmental Council,

                                                     Columbus, OH.
     Hon. Garret Graves,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Grace Napolitano,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
         Environment, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Napolitano: On 
     behalf of the Ohio Environmental Council, I am writing to 
     enthusiastically support the Water Quality Protection and Job 
     Creation Act of 2017. This bill bolsters the Clean Water 
     State Revolving Fund (SRF) by authorizing $20 billion over 
     five years for loans to improve wastewater infrastructure in 
     local communities. It also provides crucial additional 
     funding to help states control water pollution and address 
     challenges from outdated sewer systems.
       The need for this bill has never been greater as the nation 
     faces a $40 billion backlog of clean water infrastructure 
     projects, with cities and towns needing $300 billion over 20 
     years to update their water systems. In Ohio, the American 
     Society of Civil Engineers found our state needs a total 
     $14.58 billion for wastewater improvements. The Clean Water 
     SRF is an essential resource to help meet this need.
       The Water Pollution Control Loan Fund (WPCLF) program, 
     Ohio's Clean Water SRF, continues to provide fundamental 
     capacity to improve water quality for Ohio communities and 
     residents. The program includes several different loan 
     options that help both cities and rural communities prevent 
     water pollution. This includes funding to upgrade and replace 
     Home Sewage Treatment Systems (HSTS), as well as assistance 
     for wastewater collection and treatment, stormwater 
     activities, and efforts to reduce nonpoint source pollution. 
     Interest from the WPCLF program funds the preservation and 
     restoration of aquatic habitat to counter the loss of natural 
     systems that helped maintain the health of Ohio's water 
     resources.
       Since its inception the Clean Water SRF has provided $7.2 
     billion serving 621 villages, cities, counties and sewer 
     districts helping to curb pollution while providing quality 
     jobs. To ensure this program's continuing success and help 
     Ohio address our water infrastructure needs, I urge your 
     support for the Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act 
     of 2017.
           Sincerely,
                                            Heather Taylor-Miesle,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                         California Association of


                                          Sanitation Agencies,

                                                   Sacramento, CA.
     Hon. Peter DeFazio,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Public Works and Transportation, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Grace Napolitano,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
         Environment, Committee on Transportation and 
         Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ranking Members DeFazio and Napolitano: The California 
     Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA) is pleased to 
     support your efforts to address the water infrastructure 
     funding gap and specifically the introduction of the Water 
     Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2017. For 60 
     years, CASA has been the leading voice for California's 
     public wastewater agencies on regulatory, legislative and 
     legal issues.
       CASA agencies are faced with mounting challenges of aging 
     infrastructure, growing demands from increasing population, 
     and emerging challenges from changing climate conditions. 
     Confronted with these realities, there is clear demand for 
     increased infrastructure investment, including the need to 
     invest in water recycling infrastructure and clean energy 
     facilities derived from the wastewater treatment process.
       Under your legislation, the Clean Water State Revolving 
     Fund (SRF) would be renewed at $20 billion over five years. 
     This authorization represents a critical down payment toward 
     a robust federal commitment to the nation's water 
     infrastructure needs. According to the report, the financial 
     burden to simply meet water quality and water-related public 
     health goals of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in California was 
     in excess of $26 billion in 2012. Due to drought conditions 
     and other strains on our wastewater systems, that figure has 
     only gone up over the last 5 years. Nationwide the demand for 
     all clean and drinking water infrastructure needs has been 
     estimated at more than $300 billion over the next two 
     decades. CASA also supports the bill's provisions to 
     authorize grant assistance for water recycling as well as the 
     programs to address stormwater flows and combined sewer 
     overflows. In California, the ability to construct water-
     recycling projects is vital to a safe and reliable water 
     supply and to ensure protection of our ecosystems.
       As you and your colleagues work to develop a comprehensive 
     water infrastructure policy for the nation, we look forward 
     to working with you to advance meaningful federal assistance 
     programs.
                                                     Adam D. Link,
     Director of Government Affairs.
                                  ____



                          American Society of Civil Engineers,

                                      Washington, DC, May 2, 2017.
     Hon. Peter DeFazio,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Ranking Member DeFazio: The American Society of Civil 
     Engineers (ASCE) supports The Water Quality Protection and 
     Job Creation Act of 2017 to provide needed funds to fix the 
     nation's wastewater treatment systems.
       The nation's wastewater treatment systems are the most 
     basic and critical infrastructure systems for protecting 
     public health and the environment, but are badly underfunded. 
     Nearly 240 million Americans--76% of the population--rely on 
     the nation's 14,748 treatment plants for wastewater 
     sanitation. By 2032 it is expected that 56 million more 
     people will connect to centralized treatment plants, rather 
     than private septic systems--a 23% increase in demand. In the 
     U.S., there are over 800,000 miles of public sewers and 
     500,000 miles of private lateral sewers connecting private 
     property to public sewer lines. Each of these conveyance 
     systems is susceptible to structural failure, blockages, and 
     overflows.
       In March, ASCE released its 2017 Infrastructure Report 
     Card, which graded our nation's wastewater systems a ``D+.'' 
     Many wastewater systems are aging and it's expected that over 
     the next two decades, requiring at least $271 billion to meet 
     current and future demands.
       This legislation is an important step towards meeting our 
     country's wastewater investment needs and improving our 
     wastewater systems.
           Sincerely,

                                               Brian Pallasch,

                                     Managing Director, Government
     Relations & Infrastructure Initiatives.
                                  ____



                                 Water Infrastructure Network,

                                                      May 2, 2017.
     Re WIN's Strong Support for the Water Quality Improvement and 
         Job Creation Act.

     Hon. Peter DeFazio,
     Ranking Member, House Committee on Transportation and 
         Infrastructure, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ranking Member DeFazio: The Water Infrastructure 
     Network (WIN), a coalition of the nation's leading 
     construction, engineering, municipal, conservation, public 
     works, labor and manufacturing organizations, strongly 
     supports the Water Quality Improvement and Job Creation Act. 
     WIN also commends your continued work to reauthorize our 
     nation's critical water infrastructure funding programs. The 
     United States is facing a water infrastructure funding crisis 
     as documented in recent reports by CBO, EPA and WIN pointing 
     to a shortfall in funding for clean water infrastructure that 
     exceeds $300 Billion over the next two decades. The Clean 
     Water Act was last reauthorized in 1987 and WIN believes that 
     consideration and passage of legislation providing 
     substantial increased investment in America's Water 
     Infrastructure is long overdue.
       WIN is encouraged by the growing bipartisan support in 
     Congress for investing in our nation's clean water 
     infrastructure. The FY '17 Appropriation Package released 
     this week calls for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to 
     be funded at $1.39 Billion--a $414 M increase over the 
     original FY '17 funding request. The Trump Administration has 
     also made investments in our nation's water infrastructure a 
     top priority for the Environmental Protection Agency, 
     requesting increases in funding for both the Clean Water Act 
     and Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Funds in their 
     2018 Budget.
       WIN believes Congress must seize this unique opportunity 
     make long overdue investments in our nation's critical water 
     infrastructure. Investments in water infrastructure make 
     eminent economic and environmental sense for our nation. WIN 
     is committed to working with you and the bipartisan 
     leadership of the Transportation and

[[Page 9716]]

     Infrastructure Committee to advance water infrastructure 
     funding legislation in the First Session of the 115th 
     Congress.
           Sincerely,
         The WIN Executive Committee--American Council of 
           Engineering Companies (ACEC), American Public Works 
           Association (APWA), American Society of Civil Engineers 
           (ASCE), Associated General Contractors of America 
           (AGCA), International Union of Operating Engineers 
           (IUOE), Laborers International Union of North America 
           (LIUNA), National Association of Clean Water Agencies 
           (NACWA), National Rural Water Association (NRWA), 
           United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters (The 
           United), and the Vinyl Institute (VI).
                                  ____



                              Oregon Water Resources Congress,

                                       Salem, Oregon, May 3, 2017.
     Re The Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2017.

     Hon. Peter DeFazio,
     Washington, DC.
       Representative DeFazio: On behalf of the Oregon Water 
     Resources Congress (OWRC), I am writing to express our 
     support of Congressman DeFazio's efforts to reauthorize the 
     Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and tackle the water 
     quality financing needs in the country under The Water 
     Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2017. The CWSRF is 
     an effective program that addresses critical water 
     infrastructure needs while benefitting the environment, local 
     communities, and the economy.
       OWRC was established in 1912 as a trade association to 
     support the protection of water rights and promote the wise 
     stewardship of water resources statewide. OWRC members are 
     local governmental entities, which include irrigation 
     districts, water control districts, drainage districts, water 
     improvement districts, and other agricultural water suppliers 
     that deliver water to roughly 1/3 of all irrigated land in 
     Oregon. These water stewards operate complex water management 
     systems, including water supply reservoirs, canals, 
     pipelines, and hydropower facilities that serve a diverse set 
     of farmers, ranchers, and other water users contributing to 
     the local and global economy.
       The CWSRF is a perfect example of the type of program that 
     should be reauthorized because it creates jobs while 
     benefitting the environment, and is an efficient return on 
     taxpayer investment. CWSRF funded projects provide family 
     wage jobs in construction and professional services industry 
     that are a crucial component to economic recovery in Oregon 
     and other states. Moreover, as a loan program, it is a wise 
     investment that allows local communities to leverage their 
     limited resources and address critical infrastructure needs 
     that would otherwise be unmet.
       OWRC was very pleased to see the passage of the Water 
     Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN) by 
     Congress in December last year. An integral piece of the 
     funding puzzle for our member districts was reinstated by 
     this act, irrigation district eligibility for principal 
     forgiveness. The CWSRF is often an integral part of an 
     overall package of state, federal and local funding that 
     necessitates a stronger level of assurance that loan funds 
     will be available for planned water infrastructure projects. 
     Irrigation districts are often located in rural communities 
     and have a small number of farmers with limited capacity to 
     take on loan debt. Even a small reduction in the principal 
     repayment obligations can make the difference in whether or 
     not a district can move forward with a project.
       The CWSRF program is an important tool utilized by OWRC 
     members across Oregon, and we applaud this effort by 
     Congressman DeFazio to reauthorize this key program. OWRC 
     looks forward to working with the Committee and this Congress 
     as the Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2017 
     moves forward.
           Sincerely,

                                                  April Snell,

                                               Executive Director,
     Oregon Water Resources Congress.
                                  ____

                                            Southern Environmental


                                                   Law Center,

                                      Washington, DC, May 3, 2017.
     Hon. Peter DeFazio,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 
         Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jimmy Duncan,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Grace F. Napolitano,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and the 
         Environment, Committee on Transportation and 
         Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives DeFazio, Napolitano and Duncan: 
     Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) writes in support of 
     the Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2017. At 
     a time when much of our nation's infrastructure is at a 
     breaking point, bolstering our national infrastructure funds 
     is more critical than ever. Thank you for your leadership on 
     clean water infrastructure investment.
       This bill authorizes $20 billion in Federal grants over 
     five years to capitalize Clean Water State Revolving Funds 
     (Clean Water SRF). Across the country, many communities are 
     struggling with how to pay for needed investments and 
     upgrades to infrastructure that protects clean water and 
     public health. According to the 2012 Clean Watersheds Needs 
     Survey, municipalities need close to $300 billion in 
     investment over the next 20 years to bring their wastewater 
     and stormwater management infrastructure to a state of good 
     repair.
       The Clean Water SRF provides a critical source of funding 
     to states to address water infrastructure needs and reduce 
     pollution from stormwater and wastewater across the country. 
     This legislation will help communities address the estimated 
     $40 billion backlog in clean water infrastructure projects. 
     Additionally, this investment in our water infrastructure is 
     good for the economy. The report Water Works: Rebuilding 
     infrastructure, Creating Jobs and Greening the Environment 
     shows that investments in our water infrastructure, including 
     green infrastructure, would conservatively yield 1.9 million 
     American jobs and add $265 billion to the economy.
       This legislation authorizes $20 billion in Federal grants 
     over five years for the Clean Water SRF to provide low-
     interest loans and additional loan subsidizations to 
     communities for wastewater infrastructure. We are supportive 
     of efforts to increase the resiliency of treatment works to 
     natural or man-made disasters. In the face of a changing 
     climate, resiliency of our nation's infrastructure is 
     increasingly important.
       Also, this legislation authorizes $2.5 billion over five 
     years for grants to address combined sewer overflows (CSOs) 
     and sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and recapture and reuse 
     of municipal stormwater. CSOs and SSOs pose a significant 
     health and safety risk to communities and can damage local 
     economies that are dependent on clean water and tourism. We 
     are supportive of funds to address this ongoing problem that 
     can cost communities significant resources to address.
       Economists estimate that between 20,000 and 26,600 
     construction, engineering, and manufacturing jobs are created 
     for every billion dollars of federal investment in water 
     infrastructure. Investments in the Clean Water SRFs are 
     critical to protect public health, promote job creation, and 
     restore clean water in our rivers, lakes, and streams.
       SELC appreciates your leadership on clean water 
     infrastructure investment and your continued work on reducing 
     pollution related to aging and inadequately funded 
     infrastructure.
           Sincerely,

                                            Navis A. Bermudez,

                                      Deputy Legislative Director,
                                Southern Environmental Law Center.

  Mr. DeFAZIO. And according to the National Utility Contractors 
Association, every billion dollars invested in our Nation's water 
infrastructure creates or sustains 27,000 real jobs in the private 
sector. That means that the $20 billion in Federal investment in the 
Clean Water State Revolving Fund, including H.R. 2510, would create or 
sustain approximately 540,000 jobs.
  This is real. It is real. Real jobs for real people and real 
improvements in the infrastructure of this country. This would be a 
great step forward, and I urge that my colleagues adopt the amendment.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have been having such a wonderful bipartisan moment 
here. My good friend from Oregon, and appropriately, wants to change 
the tenor a little bit.
  Let me begin by actually congratulating my good friend from Oregon 
because he is a serious legislator and does serious things, and I am 
probably going to find myself on the same side with him on the issue of 
air traffic controllers where I think his points have been very well 
made.
  On this particular piece of legislation, I must admit, I have not had 
the opportunity. I don't sit on my friend's committee to actually read 
it, but I suspect the committee hasn't picked it up and dealt with it 
either.
  And just from a process standpoint, I think the appropriate thing to 
do would be for the committee to actually review it. It could be 
amended in committee, as indeed this bill was, and then we would have 
the opportunity to consider it on the floor. But to bring it to the 
floor immediately, to me, is premature, legislatively.
  I also want to take issue, on the record, with my friends of the 
President of the United States in terms of job creation. I suspect 
President Trump, in his private life, has created more jobs than just 
about anybody in

[[Page 9717]]

the Congress of the United States, and I think he has laid forward some 
incredibly important proposals to continue and build on his personal 
record, now that he is President of the United States.
  One of those proposals, as my friends are surely aware, because I 
think they largely agree with it, is to enhance the apprenticeship 
program announcement he made recently. Another one that my friends may 
not be quite so much in agreement with, he has laid out his principles 
for tax reform.
  The greatest engine for job growth is never going to be the Federal 
Government. It is going to always be the private sector. And if we 
could, as the President has suggested, cut corporate tax rates, 
incentivize the return of profit, something where perhaps we can work 
together, that are stranded overseas, bring them back here and invest 
in America, I think we would create a lot more jobs a lot more quickly 
and in a lot more sustainable fashion than we would do through 
additional public spending.
  Finally, I think we ought to give the President a little bit of 
credit for emphasizing and bringing home American jobs, something that 
actually began once he was President-elect. We saw it in Indiana with 
Carrier air-conditioning. We have seen it in other cases where he has 
promoted the sale of American arms in the Middle East where we have got 
substantial things.
  So I think this is a President who actually gets up each and every 
day and thinks profoundly about what can we do to create an overall 
ecosystem, an environment, if you will, that will incentivize private 
investment, private employment, American jobs, and bringing American 
companies back to this country.
  I think he is actually off to an exceptionally good start in those 
areas, and I look forward to working with him on that. I suspect we 
will see a tax proposal on this floor in the not-too-distant future--
our friends on Ways and Means are working on it now--that will mirror 
many of the principles that the President laid out in his initial draft 
discussion of what he thinks we ought to do.
  And that one change, changing the Tax Code, I think, will do more 
than all the programs that we would work on, many of them worthy 
programs, many of them things, I think, where the Federal Government 
does have a role.
  I will agree with my friend from Florida, I am disturbed about some 
of the cuts in training programs. I have seen those programs work and 
work well, and I suspect the President will find out, as other 
Presidents have found out--we used to routinely praise President 
Obama's budget on the floor. It never got very many votes. I don't 
think it ever got any Democratic votes--that, you know, Presidents 
propose, as they should, that is their prerogative, they run the 
executive branch, but, at the end of the day, it is Congress that makes 
the final funding decisions.
  I happen to know a little bit about those programs because they come 
through my subcommittee on appropriations, and I want to assure my 
friends they are not going to disappear. And we may have to make some 
tough choices, as you always have to do, in appropriated dollars, but 
on many of the programs that I know my friend cares about and has 
championed in his distinguished career, they are going to be protected, 
and we are going to try and work in a bipartisan fashion in those areas 
and keep those things going.
  But, at the end of the day, I think the President's record on job 
creation will be outstanding, and I think the actions that he has taken 
in the opening part of his administration are a testament to how 
seriously he takes the challenge of making sure that every American has 
a decent job, a job that pays a good wage, a job that will provide for 
his or her family, and a job that will give them an opportunity to live 
a life of dignity and prosperity, something we want every American to 
have a chance at.
  So with that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I first want to address my good friend about the previous question 
and the fact that it has not gone through the process. I will just 
remind him that the chatter in Washington today is about a healthcare 
measure that hasn't gone through the process, at least to the extent 
that most of us would all want.
  I also have great respect for my good friend from Oklahoma, and I 
know he will see and get a chance to talk with President Donald John 
Trump. I am not likely to.

                              {time}  1300

  But I would ask him to tell him when he sees him for me that I came 
here in 1993, and there were 14,000 bridges in need of repair in 
America, and last year the statistics from the society that does that 
analysis showed that there are 54,000 bridges in need of repair in this 
country. The point that I wish to make is that we need a serious 
substantial infrastructure measure.
  Mr. Speaker, we talk a lot about jobs in this Chamber. I was at a 
forum on Saturday, and someone mentioned: My governor's mantra is 
``jobs, jobs, jobs.'' And that person said: Well, he must mean that you 
have to have three jobs in order to get by.
  I am glad that we are here today considering a bill that will help 
Americans in search of work to find a good-paying position that will 
help them support themselves and their families. We have a lot of 
issues facing us, and this bipartisan legislation is just one tiny step 
forward in the right direction. I hope this measure translates into 
more bipartisan bills.
  Too often, from healthcare reform, tax reform--footnote right there. 
My friend mentions that we will likely see a tax reform measure 
sometime soon. I hope that it doesn't revert to trickle down. We have 
seen trickle down. It did not work, and I hope we don't do that again.
  We have an opportunity on other issues, and in many respects the 
majority has shut out the minority from the process, just like what has 
happened until today, at least, in the other body with reference to 
healthcare.
  The bills we have debated and even passed are projected to eliminate 
millions of jobs. Even as we talk about job creation, my friends across 
the aisle too frequently turn around and champion measures that would 
do just the opposite. There is so much room for cooperation in this 
area, yet time and time again we are kept out of the process, and the 
results speak for themselves. For the sake of our country, this needs 
to change.
  Even though this is a bipartisan bill, it also serves as an example 
of what I mean. I was disappointed that my Republican colleagues in the 
Rules Committee blocked yesterday six germane amendments to this bill. 
It is a symptom of the closed process. When we prevent germane 
amendments from even being debated by the House, it does us all a 
disservice, yet my friends across the aisle do it again and again.
  Mr. Speaker, I will close with this: President Obama is credited for 
creating 11.3 million jobs in our country. The economy added jobs for 
75 straight months, and very fortunately that carryover for the last 5 
months has continued.
  While President Donald John Trump makes untenable pledge after 
pledge, I watched every word of his speech last night in Iowa, and all 
I heard was platitudes. I didn't hear anything about substance. And it 
seemed like a road test for some new ideas. He makes these untenable 
pledges, including a very humble promise to be--and I quote him--``the 
greatest jobs producer that God ever created.''
  The record is clear, the Democratic Party is, has been, and will be 
the party of job creation, and is ready to work with my Republican 
colleagues to continue significant job creation in this country.
  So I will ask my friends across the aisle, let us continue the trend 
of the past few years and work together to produce bipartisan measures 
that will benefit the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.

[[Page 9718]]


  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by addressing a couple of points that my 
friend made. There will be places we agree; there will be places we 
disagree. I think too often around here we talk about how nothing gets 
done when this has actually been an extraordinarily productive period 
in terms of passing legislation. We are going to have differences on 
some of that legislation, there is no question. There is a reason why 
God created a Democratic Party and a Republican Party, and it probably 
wasn't to always agree all the time, but it was to challenge one 
another and try to work together when they could or define alternative 
paths when they felt they must, and let the American people make the 
decision.
  Fortunately, we are blessed to live in a country where they get to 
make that decision on a regular basis like clockwork. They have been 
making some decisions recently. I think the President has had a pretty 
good run in special elections. We are pretty pleased with the decisions 
they have been making. But at some point they will change their mind--
they always do--and they will decide somebody else has a better way.
  I think in the interim we ought to stress occasionally so the 
American people know when we do work together. I actually was home 
after we managed to pass healthcare through this particular body, and 
that bill moved through multiple committees, had multiple amendments, 
lots of negotiation. Obviously it is in the Senate now. I think that 
process will start over there. But the day before we passed it, 
actually, we came together in a really quite remarkable way. We passed 
an omnibus spending bill of over $1 trillion. That bill had worked 
through the Appropriations Committee of each House, 12 different bills 
put together to fund the Federal Government. That particular bill gave 
us the largest increase in defense spending in about a decade, the 
largest increase in border security money in about a decade. It gave us 
a substantial increase in money at the National Institutes of Health 
and at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, areas that 
Democrats and Republicans alike have been working together on and feel 
very strongly about.
  That bill also broke the one-to-one relationship--pretty artificial 
relationship, in my view--that President Obama had laid down that, if 
you increase defense spending, you have to automatically increase 
domestic spending whether you need to or not or whether you can afford 
to or not. Frankly, that bill actually passed with a majority of my 
friends on the Democratic side in both the House and the Senate and a 
majority of Republicans in the House and the Senate voting for the same 
bill and Donald Trump signing the bill.
  Now, when I go home and I explain that to people, they look at me 
with a blank stare. It is like: What? That really happened? One 
trillion dollars with all those different elements in there and a 
majority of Democrats voted for it and a majority of Republicans voted 
for it and Donald Trump signed it?
  I say: Yeah.
  They are amazed. They have never heard about it. They have never seen 
it. I think that is because sometimes we present a false narrative of 
constant conflict. There is certainly plenty of conflict here. Look, I 
have some sympathy with the minority. Having been in the minority 
myself, you always feel shut out. But this is an occasion--this 
legislation, and, frankly, that spending bill--when my friends 
certainly weren't shut out. They participated, and they participated 
vigorously, and they contributed in the process.
  I am with my friend. We need to do more of that. As a matter of fact, 
I think you will see it is happening right now. If you go to the 
Defense Committee, they are working on their authorization bill. That 
committee is the most bipartisan committee probably in Congress. Every 
time they report something out on an authorization--I think they have 
63 or 64 members, something like that--the vote is always like 60 to 3. 
They have clearly put aside their partisan differences to work 
together.
  In this bill, we have done exactly the same thing. So while we are 
going to have some points where we disagree, we are going to have some 
opportunities to agree and come together. And I pledge to my friend I 
will continue to work with him to try and see that we find more of 
them.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to encourage all of the Members, 
obviously, to support the rule, but I am sure my good friends on the 
other side probably won't accept the invitation. That is okay. This is 
a process vote and they have got other matters they want on the floor, 
and I certainly understand that they will be opposing our rule and 
trying to offer an alternative.
  But when the matter counts, when the actual legislation reaches the 
floor, I think H.R. 2842 will draw broad bipartisan support. This House 
is taking steps to help workers leave welfare rolls and return to the 
workforce. Under this bill, employers will be incentivized to hire TANF 
recipients and will help bring the unemployed up into the workforce and 
the economy.
  This bill is a commonsense bipartisan solution that will benefit 
everyone: the workers, the employers, the community, the economy, and 
the Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle for their work on this important piece of legislation. I think if 
we can get it through this House and we get it through the Senate, I am 
sure that Mr. Trump will be more than happy to sign it.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 396 Offered by Mr. Hastings

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     2510) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
     authorize appropriations for State water pollution control 
     revolving funds, 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. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the 
     Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to 
     no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day 
     the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the 
     Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 2510.
                                  ____


        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.''

[[Page 9719]]

       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS. 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 226, 
nays 184, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 316]

                               YEAS--226

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Black
     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
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     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
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     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)
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--184

     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
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     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
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     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
     Roybal-Allard
     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--21

     Banks (IN)
     Bishop (UT)
     Cummings
     DeLauro
     Gabbard
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keating
     Lance
     Larsen (WA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Long
     Meeks
     Messer
     Napolitano
     Perry
     Roskam
     Scalise
     Tiberi
     Wasserman Schultz
     Wenstrup

                              {time}  1333

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


      Moment of Silence Honoring Servicemembers Killed Aboard USS 
                             ``Fitzgerald''

  Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the USS 
Fitzgerald collided with a container ship off the coast of Japan. Seven 
of our brave servicemembers were killed in the collision.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in a moment of silence to honor the 
brave sailors who gave the ultimate sacrifice for our country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will 
continue.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 233, 
noes 179, not voting 19, as follows:

[[Page 9720]]



                             [Roll No. 317]

                               AYES--233

     Abraham
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Black
     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
     Crist
     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
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     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
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     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
     Schneider
     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)
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--179

     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
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     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
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     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
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     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--19

     Aderholt
     Bishop (UT)
     Cummings
     Gabbard
     Hastings
     Johnson, Sam
     Lance
     Larsen (WA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Long
     Meeks
     Messer
     Napolitano
     Perry
     Ruiz
     Scalise
     Tiberi
     Wasserman Schultz
     Wenstrup

                              {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.
  Stated against:
  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained today for rollcall 
vote No. 317. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I was unexpectedly detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 316, and ``yea'' on 
rollcall No. 317.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Speaker, I missed two votes on June 22. If I were 
present, I would have voted on the following: Rollcall No. 316: On 
Ordering the Previous Question, ``yea.'' Rollcall No. 317: On Passage 
of H. Res. 396, ``yea.''


                          personal explanation

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No. 
316 and No. 317 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had 
I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Motion on Ordering 
the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 
2842. I would have also voted ``nay'' on H. Res. 396--Rule providing 
for consideration of H.R. 2842--Accelerating Individuals into the 
Workforce Act.

                          ____________________