PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5895, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3, SPENDING CUTS TO EXPIRED AND...; Congressional Record Vol. 164, No. 94
(House of Representatives - June 07, 2018)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages H4862-H4869]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5895, ENERGY AND WATER 
    DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019, AND 
  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3, SPENDING CUTS TO EXPIRED AND 
                        UNNECESSARY PROGRAMS ACT

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 923 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 923

       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 further 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 5895) making appropriations 
     for energy and water development and related agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other 
     purposes. The further amendment printed in part A of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the 
     Committee of the Whole. No further amendment to the bill, as 
     amended, shall be in order except those printed in part B of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules and available pro forma 
     amendments described in section 4 of House Resolution 918. 
     Each further amendment printed in part B of the report shall 
     be considered 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     and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any 
     time before action thereon, shall not be subject to amendment 
     except amendments described in section 4 of House Resolution 
     918, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All 
     points of order against such further amendments are waived. 
     At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment 
     the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to 
     the House with such further amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3) to rescind 
     certain budget authority proposed to be rescinded in special 
     messages transmitted to the Congress by the President on May 
     8, 2018, in accordance with title X of the Congressional 
     Budget and Impoundment Control Act 1974. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment 
     printed in part C of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. 
     The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are 
     waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment 
     thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their respective 
     designees; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 3.  The provisions of section 1017 of the Impoundment 
     Control Act of 1974 shall not apply to a bill or joint 
     resolution introduced with respect to the special message 
     transmitted under section 1012 of that Act on May 8, 2018.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), 
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. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  House Resolution 923 provides for the consideration of two important 
bills related to Federal spending of taxpayer dollars.
  The first, H.R. 5895, the combined appropriations bill, containing 
three individual fiscal year 2019 Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, 
and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bills, provides the 
annual funding for these Federal departments.
  The second bill, H.R. 3, the Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary 
Programs Act, is a critical bill to honor the House Republicans' 
commitment to eliminating wasteful Federal spending.
  The resolution before us this afternoon provides for a structured 
rule for H.R. 5895. Yesterday, the House passed the first rule 
pertaining to this bill, providing for 1 hour of general debate on the 
measure. Today's rule makes in order 40 amendments offered by both 
Democrats and Republicans.
  House Resolution 923 also provides a closed rule for H.R. 3, the 
rescissions package, but does execute Leader McCarthy's amendment which 
incorporates President Trump's revised and updated spending proposal.
  One hour of debate time for H.R. 3 is provided, divided and 
controlled equally by the majority leader and the minority leader or 
their respective designees.
  Finally, the rule provides the minority the customary motion to 
recommit on both pieces of legislation under consideration.
  H.R. 5895, the Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military 
Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act of 2019, funds a 
net total of $144 billion in base discretionary spending, $33 billion 
for defense, and $112 billion for nondefense purposes. The totals 
reflect the amount specified in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018.
  Division A of the appropriations package funds the Energy and Water 
Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act at nearly $45 
billion,

[[Page H4863]]

providing for national security and energy and water infrastructure 
investments.
  The bill would increase Federal investments in nuclear security by 
$600 million above fiscal year 2018, then totaling more than $15 
billion.
  As President Trump has repeatedly stated, our Nation must modernize 
its aging nuclear forces. They are the centerpiece of our deterrent 
strategy, and we cannot allow them to degrade to a point where they 
become functionally useless.
  To prevent this outcome, nuclear weapons activities, especially Navy 
nuclear reactors, all continue to receive funding. Congress must not 
leave the United States unprepared while our adversaries continue to 
advance their own nuclear weapons programs.
  Division A also improves the security of our energy infrastructure. 
Most Americans take for granted the ability to easily access 
electricity, but that convenience is tenuous. The electric grid is 
massive, it is complex, and it is vulnerable to cyber and physical 
attacks. These threats have become increasingly likely as more 
operations go online or are connected to a network which is not secure.
  This bill appropriates $117 million to ensure that our energy 
infrastructure operators have the resources they need to develop these 
defenses.

                              {time}  1245

  Additionally, the bill supports the completion of the Yucca Mountain 
nuclear waste repository, helping to ease the risk and burden of 
storing nuclear waste in temporary storage sites across the country.
  In 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act gave the Department 
of Energy authority to regulate incandescent light bulbs through the 
law's excessive energy efficiency standards, effectively killing free 
market competition.
  Therefore, I submitted an amendment that would prohibit the use of 
Federal funds to carry out these onerous enforcement standards. This 
amendment has been included in the Energy and Water Development 
appropriations bill every fiscal year since 2011, and I look forward to 
continued consumer choice in this market.
  Division A includes the United States Army Corps of Engineers. In 
Texas' 26th Congressional District that I represent, the Army Corps has 
been instrumental in ensuring the thorough maintenance, repair, and 
safety of Lake Lewisville Dam, which sustained damage due to heavy 
rains in the north Texas area in 2015.
  This is just one example of the important work the Army Corps 
performs throughout the United States, and the bill increases funding 
of the agency to more than $7 billion for fiscal year 2019.
  The bill also repeals the massive overreach of Federal authority 
known as the waters of the United States rule, promulgated by the 
Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Army Corps of 
Engineers. This rule changed the definition of navigable waters subject 
to Federal regulation under the Clean Water Act, placing significant 
costs on property owners.
  Last, the bill prohibits the use of nuclear nonproliferation projects 
in Russia without certain notifications from the Secretary of Energy.
  Division B appropriates $3.8 billion for the legislative branch. This 
encompasses the House of Representatives and joint operations with the 
Senate.
  The House of Representatives is funded at $1.2 billion, which is $25 
million below the President's budget request. Funding also supports 
Capitol security and police forces, services for visitors, and Capitol 
operations and maintenance.
  The Capitol Police are funded at $456 million, an increase of $30 
million above fiscal year 2018. Last year, we learned just how vital 
the Capitol Police are when they responded to and stopped a shooter who 
opened fire at a congressional baseball game practice.
  The bravery and skill demonstrated by those agents are what allows 
Members of Congress, our staff, our support personnel, and visitors to 
go to work or visit the Capitol complex every day without fear. They 
deserve our full support.
  The Office of Compliance is appropriated over $5 million for employee 
and Member workplace rights training. This funding will also support a 
dispute resolution process that is fair and accessible for all.
  The bill also includes almost $580 million for the Government 
Accountability Office so that it may continue its vital work of 
oversight and reporting on how Federal programs are using taxpayer 
dollars.
  Two important things that the bill does not fund are a cost-of-living 
increase for Members of Congress and allowances for former Speakers of 
the House.
  Division C of the appropriations package provides over $96 billion in 
discretionary funding for Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, 
an increase of more than $4 billion over fiscal year 2018.
  Nearly all of the increase in funding goes toward supporting the 
efforts and the services of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robust 
funding for Veterans Affairs will ensure that those who have served our 
country have access to quality services.
  This bill includes a total of $194 billion in discretionary and 
mandatory funding for Veterans Affairs, which is $9 billion more than 
fiscal year 2018.
  Importantly, this bill provides more than $71 billion for Veterans 
Affairs medical care and more than $1 billion in funding for the 
Department of Veterans Affairs to deploy a new electronic health 
records system that aligns with the Department of Defense.
  Mr. Speaker, this is something that we have been promised since 2006. 
This will allow our veterans an easier transition into the Veterans 
Affairs system than they experience today.
  The bill also includes funding for reducing the disability claims 
backlog so that veterans will receive more timely compensation.
  Yesterday, the VA MISSION Act was signed into law. American veterans 
deserve the best possible care, and this bill gives the Department of 
Veterans Affairs the resources to work towards providing that care for 
the 7 million patients who are expected to receive Veterans Affairs 
treatment in fiscal year 2019.
  Additionally, this bill funds construction, operation, and 
maintenance of housing for our troops and medical and education 
facilities at over $10 billion.
  This is the first step toward funding the government and its 
essential programs for fiscal year 2019. This year, Congress will do 
its job to ensure smart, efficient, and appropriate use of taxpayer 
dollars.
  H.R. 3, the second bill contained in today's rule, is the rescissions 
package to cut stagnant and unused prior-year Federal funding.
  President Trump submitted and recently revised a proposal to rescind 
approximately $14.5 billion of budget authority, affecting 15 Federal 
departments and agencies. These include unobligated balances from the 
Department of Energy's Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan 
Program and the Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program; the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development's capital fund; the 
Department of Justice's Assets Forfeiture Fund; the Department of 
State's Complex Crisis Fund; and unnecessary funding for the Millennium 
Challenge Corporation, among other things.
  President Trump recently revised his request to withdraw the proposed 
rescission of emergency Ebola funds as well as supplemental 
appropriations for Superstorm Sandy recovery and to decrease proposed 
rescissions to Housing and Urban Development's capital fund and 
Treasury's capital management fund.

  Two provisions related to the Children's Health Insurance Program 
should be noted.
  The first rescinds over $5 billion that was included in the Medicare 
Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 that supplements the fiscal 
year 2017 allotments to States. This was in addition to the annual 
Children's Health Insurance Program appropriation to reimburse States 
for Children's Health Insurance Program expenses. The remaining funds 
are no longer needed.
  The second provision rescinds almost $2 billion made available to the 
Children's Health Insurance Program contingency fund, which is used to 
provide payments to States that have funding shortfalls. The Centers 
for Medicare and Medicaid Services currently does

[[Page H4864]]

not expect any State to need a payment from the contingency fund during 
the current fiscal year.
  It is important that the American people understand that these 
Children's Health Insurance Program rescissions will have no impact on 
the current Children's Health Insurance Program.
  Early this year, Republicans passed and signed into law the longest 
and most generous extension to the Children's Health Insurance Program 
in its 20-year history. When House Democrats were presented this 
opportunity, they voted against it not once but twice.
  Mr. Speaker, when Federal funds are no longer needed in an agency or 
have not been obligated, Congress should do the right thing and use 
these taxpayer dollars to reduce the deficit.
  I support passage of the rule to allow debate on these important 
priorities. I urge Members to support today's rule and both underlying 
bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule makes 39 amendments in order to the 
appropriations bill we have been considering this week.
  Unfortunately, this appropriations package is made up of three 
individual appropriations bills. Also, in what is a surprise to us in 
the minority, this rule also includes a surprising $15 billion in 
rescissions--cuts--to programs our communities depend on.
  Why aren't we given the opportunity to bring up these bills 
individually? Considering that nearly 200 amendments were offered to 
this package while many of us were working in our districts, it is 
obvious to me that these bills would have benefited from a longer 
debate.
  This rule makes in order 39 amendments to the underlying package, 
which includes H.R. 5895, the Energy and Water Development and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act of 2019; H.R. 5894, the Legislative Branch 
Appropriations Act of 2019; and H.R. 5786, the Military Construction, 
Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2019.
  However, 59 additional amendments will not be given an opportunity to 
be heard, including bipartisan amendments like the Cicilline-Poliquin 
amendment to prohibit oil drilling on the Atlantic Outer Continental 
Shelf or the Foster-Hultgren amendment to increase funding for the 
Department of Energy's Office of Science or the Issa-Roybal-Allard 
amendment to support programs that improve veteran access to care at 
qualified health centers. Don't these distinguished Members of this 
body deserve to have their amendments discussed, debated, and voted on?
  This rule also makes in order H.R. 3, the GOP rescission package. Mr. 
Speaker, this bill has not received a single hearing--not one. This was 
a last-minute addition which gave no time for amendments to be 
considered.
  The closed rule, which is how the rescissions package comes to the 
floor, pushes this Congress further into the record books as the most 
closed Congress in history.
  Before I speak more on that, I do want to take a brief moment to 
highlight the bipartisan manner in which the appropriators acted in 
crafting the Military Construction and Legislative Branch bills. This 
is proof that, when this body wants to, we can work together and 
produce legislation that results in broad, bipartisan consensus.
  The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill provides a $4.17 
billion increase to the servicemembers we represent--specifically, a 
$3.9 billion increase to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  The Legislative Branch bill takes more steps we should have taken a 
long time ago and provides additional resources for training and to 
help with complaints on sexual harassment and violations of employee 
rights. None of us here are immune to harassers, but at least this bill 
moves us forward in addressing the bad behaviors of those who walk 
among us.
  This rule makes in order amendments to the Energy and Water 
appropriations bill. However, this bill does not follow the same 
bipartisan path. Instead, this bill is full of poison pill riders that 
will ultimately make our time here a total waste, as those poison pill 
riders mean that the Senate will ignore this package as it is written.
  Incredibly, when most Americans are asking Congress to make 
commonsense improvements to our Nation's gun laws, this bill goes in 
the opposite direction. That is right. This Congress is finally acting 
on guns--in a cowardly way, by expanding where guns can be brought onto 
Federal lands, ignoring the cries and the calls from our children--our 
children who are being murdered in their classrooms, our constituents 
who are being murdered in movie theaters, our constituents who are 
being murdered in concert halls in Las Vegas, Nevada, where people go 
to get married, where people go to have fun, and, yes, they make babies 
sometimes in Vegas too. But yet we are ignoring their calls for help.

                              {time}  1300

  It is amazing that we can go on months without meaningful reforms on 
gun violence and now we take up a giant spending package that forces 
Members to vote on yet another expansion of gun access. What are we 
trying to do?
  Again, a cowardice act to expand the use of weapons in our Federal 
lands. For what? So we can go into the dens of bears and kill them--the 
momma bears and the baby bears--while they are sleeping?
  That is what we are doing in this Congress.
  Perhaps that wouldn't be such a problem if we had a single open rule 
on the House floor that would allow the House to work its will on this 
or any other issue Members have with portions of this legislation.
  Finally, this rule makes in order H.R. 3, President Trump's and the 
GOP's rescissions bill. As I mentioned before, this bill saw no 
hearings. Zero.
  But perhaps just as troubling was Ranking Member Lowey's remarks in 
our Rules Committee hearing last night about how the minority wasn't 
even consulted prior to this bill coming to the floor, ignoring the 
thousands of constituents that we represent. So, not only has this bill 
skipped the normal appropriations process, Democrats have not been 
given an opportunity to add the voice of their constituents.
  Make no mistake, this is a highly partisan bill which does not 
reflect the House's will. Instead, this is what our constituents hate 
the most: a Congress that is most dysfunctional.
  This bill makes significant cuts to programs that create jobs, grow 
our economy, and provide healthcare to millions of children in a 
transparent attempt to appear fiscally conservative after passing a tax 
bill that added $1.9 trillion to the deficit and gave most of its 
benefit to the wealthiest among us.
  If we want to rescind something to balance the deficit, how about we 
start with the $1 trillion budget-busting tax bill that was passed for 
the wealthy. That irresponsible law is now the cause of Medicare and 
Social Security going bankrupt decades earlier.
  This bill is a political gimmick to hide the Republican majority's 
gross mismanagement of our Nation's long-term fiscal health. While the 
GOP tax giveaway benefited the wealthiest among us, almost half of the 
cuts in this rescissions package are to the Children's Health Insurance 
Program. Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker: the Children's Health 
Insurance Program.
  We have $7 billion eliminated from CHIP. That is right. They didn't 
blink an eye at a $2 trillion giveaway to the wealthy, but yet they are 
squeezing fractional savings from funds intended for children's health 
insurance.
  But that isn't the end of it. So that corporations and millionaires 
can have a tax break, the House majority has decided to make a 
collection of cuts that will impact every community: Cuts to economic 
development; cuts to the Forest Service while the West of America is 
burning; cuts to Indian housing programs, cuts to foreign assistance; 
cuts to transportation while our infrastructure is crumbling; cuts to 
public housing while the growing number of Americans grow homeless; 
cuts to conservation; and cuts to advanced technology vehicle loans.
  What is it that you want to do? Do you want to take us back to the 
time of Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble?

[[Page H4865]]

  I know that my Republican colleagues will say that they aren't cuts 
because the funding can't be used, but no Federal agencies were asked 
if they needed a waiver to utilize this funding where they need it the 
most. I doubt that my colleagues will say they couldn't use this in 
their communities.
  Well, let me put these cuts in the voice of the Great Gazoo: those 
cuts are dumb and dumber cuts.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why I must strongly oppose this rule, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, February 9 of this year, the House of Representatives 
passed the most generous extension of the Children's Health Insurance 
Program since its inception in 1996. The gentlewoman from California 
voted against that extension.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Gibbs), a valuable member of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee and the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 5895 
that provides essential protections for the current and future health 
of Lake Erie.
  It prevents the Army Corps of Engineers from dumping dredged sediment 
from the Cuyahoga River in the lake without the approval of the State 
of Ohio. This dredge sediment can contain harmful contaminants, 
potentially increasing the risk of polluted fish and wildlife.
  Lake Erie is one of Ohio's most precious and important natural 
resources. It would be irresponsible to reverse the environmental gains 
we have recently made with the lake, which is why this provision is so 
important.
  Additionally, this bill includes a provision to expand the ability of 
law-abiding citizens to possess a firearm on Army Corps of Engineers 
land, so long as they are legally permitted to carry a firearm and are 
in full compliance with State law and as they are allowed to do on 
other Federal parks and Federal lands. This provision merely brings the 
Army Corps recreational property in line with the rules of land owned 
by the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
  Finally, this bill includes a full congressional repeal of the 
harmful Obama-era WOTUS rule, waters of the United States, an executive 
overreach that expanded Federal jurisdiction beyond ``navigable 
waters.'' These provisions are important in ensuring the Federal 
Government does not impose its will or expand its authority at the 
expense of States or individuals.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this, and I want to commend the 
chairmen of these committees for the work they have done in the 
rescissions package in this bill and the Energy and Water bill to move 
this country forward.

  I would also note, Mr. Speaker, historically, if you look back in the 
past 20 or 30 years in past administrations, both Republican and 
Democratic, rescissions used to be common practice to claw back money 
that was never spent or could no longer be spent and bring it back to 
the Treasury and let the Congress re-appropriate the money as they deem 
fit.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this rule.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, does this Republican majority have amnesia? Did they 
forget how we got here?
  Congressional Republicans blew a nearly $2 trillion hole in the 
deficit by giving tax cuts to the wealthy and large corporations. That 
is trillion with a T. Now they are acting like they are great deficit 
hawks for bringing forward a bill that rescinds $15 billion in Federal 
spending. That is billion with a B. It is a tiny fraction of the 
trillions of dollars they spent on tax cuts.
  You don't have to be some great scholar to see this disparity. It is 
right here on this chart. This really big red bar, Mr. Speaker, that 
plunges down to nearly $2 trillion represents the impact of the 
Republican tax bill on the deficit. It is actually $1.9 trillion. It is 
not good. That really, really, really tiny small bar on the right 
represents the so-called ``savings'' that this bill will provide.
  For those in the gallery, you are going to need binoculars to see 
that line. To my Republican colleagues, I am happy to lend you my 
bifocals so you can see how inconsequential this rescission package is 
in terms of dealing with our deficit.
  Now, don't get me wrong, $15 million is a lot of money, but in the 
context of what this Republican House has done to our deficit--blowing 
a hole in it to give tax cuts to the megarich--in that context, it 
isn't even a down payment on fixing the deficit.
  This bill isn't the result of some great process. Mr. Speaker, there 
was no process. There was no hearing on the bill. The Appropriations 
Committee didn't go over these proposed cuts one by one, weighing 
whether they made sense or not.
  This is the result of the whims of President Trump. He seems to 
change his mind about as often as he logs on to Twitter. How else can 
the majority explain slashing funds to fight Ebola the same day there 
is an Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo?
  You cannot make this stuff up.
  It took language in a manager's amendment to reverse this, just like 
the majority was forced to reverse cuts to funds designed to help New 
York and New Jersey recover from Superstorm Sandy. Perhaps if you had a 
hearing and you listened to Members of Congress, you listened to the 
committees of jurisdiction, you might avoid these embarrassments.
  This bill is also being considered under yet another record-breaking 
closed rule. That means no Member can offer an amendment on the floor 
to approve it.
  Last month, Republicans officially turned this Congress into the most 
closed Congress in history. It was only May. We still have 6 months to 
go before the end of this Congress. Apparently, there is no end in 
sight for the majority's restrictive process. It would make Vladimir 
Putin jealous. This is not a process to be proud of. This is a process 
the Republicans should be ashamed of.
  The cuts in this bill aren't harmless. They will hurt real people. 
Almost half the cuts in this package are to the Children's Health 
Insurance Program. This bill also hurts farmers by cutting funding they 
need to carry out important conservation programs.
  This bill cuts funding for the Economic Development Administration, 
an agency focused on economic growth and private sector job creation, 
at a time when they have a project backlog nationwide. In my own 
congressional district, I have visited at least 10 high-quality 
projects seeking investments from EDA. These projects, and countless 
others all across the country, are now in jeopardy if this rescissions 
package becomes law.
  These are not unnecessary programs, as the bill's title suggests. 
This funding was appropriated under the FY 2017 omnibus negotiated over 
just a year ago. Both parties agreed to it. The President signed it 
into law. Now, President Trump has suddenly changed his mind. Maybe it 
was something he saw on Fox News, since he takes most of his marching 
orders from them.
  After spending nearly $2 trillion on tax cuts for the superrich and 
blowing up the deficit, the majority's bill is like putting a Band-Aid 
on a gaping wound.
  Republicans are trying to trick the American people into thinking 
that somehow they care about fiscal responsibility. Well, they are not 
fooling anyone.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rouzer). The Chair would remind Members 
to refrain from references to occupants of the gallery.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that as of June 7 of this 
year, Republicans in the 115th Congress have provided consideration for 
over 1,200 amendments on the House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, during the entirety of the 111th Congress, when Speaker 
Pelosi was Speaker, the Democrats allowed less than 1,000 amendments to 
be considered on the floor. Their majority blocked nearly 3,000 
amendments that year in Congress.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

[[Page H4866]]

  

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  I would like to recognize that on February 9 of this year, the most 
generous extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program--for 10 
years' time--was passed by the House and eventually signed into law. 
The gentleman from Massachusetts fought against that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Knight).

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule.
  I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for the inclusion of 
language in the E&W report that would launch a new initiative at the 
Department of Energy to aggressively drive down costs and improve the 
performance of grid-scale energy storage technologies.
  This report language is similar to the BEST Act, which I sponsored 
and of which the ranking member is a cosponsor. The BEST Act is a 
bipartisan authorization bill that directs the Secretary of Energy to 
establish a moonshot goal of three demonstrations of grid-scale battery 
storage that will meet aggressive commercialization targets for cost, 
performance, and durability.
  This concept is modeled after the success of the DOE's SunShot 
Initiative, which brought down the cost of solar energy by 75 percent 
in less than 5 years.
  One of the biggest challenges to greater incorporation of new energy 
sources into the power grid is the lack of cost-competitive grid-scale 
solutions. Intermittent energy sources cannot reach their potential 
without commercially viable storage facilities. We all know this.
  Much of the energy we produce is lost, diminishing utility 
productivity. While the DOE has issued grants to pursue better battery 
storage, funding has been too dispersed to produce the breakthroughs 
needed to transform our electricity grid. This initiative will leverage 
work currently being done in the Office of Science to set a moonshot 
goal for energy storage technology.
  In a further sign of the merit of these demonstrations, the Senate 
E&W bill also includes very similar report language.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to allow the rewriting 
of history. The majority has blocked over 2,000 amendments, and it is 
only June.
  Mr. Speaker, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs 
Appropriations Act would shortchange our veterans by subjecting funding 
for their healthcare programs to onerous budget restraints. This would 
force funding for veterans healthcare to compete with other important 
veterans programs.
  Therefore, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to include Representative Lamb's legislation, 
H.R. 5805, to fix the VA Choice budget shortfall and Representative 
Carter's amendment to MILCON-VA which includes more funds for vital 
veteran healthcare initiatives.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Lamb) to discuss our proposal.
  Mr. LAMB. Mr. Speaker, I rise today so that we can finish the work 
that we started with the VA MISSION Act.
  Just yesterday, the President signed the VA MISSION Act into law, and 
it is a good bill. But the words on that piece of paper and his 
signature, Mr. Speaker, are not what takes care of our veterans. It is 
the doctors and nurses in our VA facilitates who do that. The VA 
MISSION Act gives us a chance to make their jobs easier and let them do 
it better.
  But we have to be honest about the fact that it also poses serious 
risks because of these strict budget caps. These budget caps were in 
place, Mr. Speaker, before we ever did the VA MISSION Act. I don't know 
if they were put in place because people had lost faith in the VA, but 
I recently visited two VA hospitals in the Pittsburgh area and came 
away with a renewed faith in what the VA can do.
  I met a man who was a Vietnam veteran, wheelchair-bound, who has 
lived in the VA hospital for 3 years. If things were as bad as its 
critics say, you might expect a man like that to be downtrodden or 
upset with the VA. Instead, when I asked him how he was feeling, tears 
came to his eyes and his voice choked with emotion as he described for 
me the way that the director of that hospital comes to mass with him 
every morning and asks about his family.
  We had that conversation in a kitchen built inside that hospital that 
looks like the kitchen in any nice home. The nurses bring in food of 
their own to cook for the patients of theirs. It operates like a real 
family.
  This is what it looks like, Mr. Speaker, when we keep our promises to 
our veterans and, more accurately, when our doctors and nurses keep 
that promise on our behalf.
  But all of this is at risk if we do not finish what we started with 
the VA MISSION Act. If we do nothing, the money that we have 
appropriated for the Veterans Choice Program will bust the strict 
budget caps that VA is under, and that will trigger automatic, 
indiscriminate cuts across the board.
  Mr. Speaker, that man asked me for one thing. He said that next year 
on Memorial Day he was hoping that they could have a cookout and that I 
would come back and have a hot dog with him.
  When that happens 1 year from now, Mr. Speaker, that same VA hospital 
may very well be under the strict budget cuts. Something like a cookout 
would be seen as an extravagance if you are getting 25 percent, 30 
percent cuts across the board. And we will be responsible for that, Mr. 
Speaker. That is the only thing that man asked for.
  He has been cared for. We have gotten him the care he deserves. We 
need to ensure that for the next generation. We can fix that today. We 
can exempt the new money in the VA MISSION Act from the strict budget 
caps by voting ``no'' on the previous question so that my bill, H.R. 
5805, can be made in order.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's service to our 
country. I would point out that I worked as a physician in a VA 
facility in the 1970s, and I am well aware of the good work that the 
doctors and nurses in VA facilities provide.
  I would like to point out that, in the Statement of Administration 
Policy, the administration expected the MISSION Act to be in place by 
the beginning of fiscal year 2018. Do remember that this was one of the 
promises that then-candidate Trump promised to the Nation, that he 
would make the funding of the veterans programs a priority, and I 
believe he has done that.

  Continuing to quote from the administration: ``The delay in enacting 
the MISSION Act's new community care program increases the requirements 
to continue the VA's current traditional community care program by an 
additional $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2019.''
  Here is the important point: ``The administration looks forward to 
working with Congress to secure this funding within the existing 
nondefense discretionary cap.''
  I think it is fair to say there is more to come.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES. 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 (Mr. Comer). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maine (Ms. Pingree).
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 3 as 
well as the underlying bill. As a member of the House Appropriations 
Committee, I do not believe we should be retroactively taking back 
already approved funding to pay for tax cuts to corporations.
  There are countless ludicrous provisions in this bill to cut rural 
housing, conservation, and other programs that support communities, 
farmers, and those in need. I would like to focus on one provision in 
H.R. 3 that is particularly upsetting because it would rescind over $14 
million from USDA's Value Added Producer Grant program, one of the only 
USDA grants that go directly to farmers' pockets.

[[Page H4867]]

  Let me be absolutely clear. Despite what the administration has said, 
these are funds that farmers have already applied for. Those 
applications were already under review by the USDA when the rescission 
package was introduced. Projects are ready to go and jobs are waiting 
to be created with this funding.
  It makes me very angry to see that the administration's rescission 
proposal describes these grants as wasteful and specifically identifies 
a chocolate-covered peanut project as an example of alleged wasteful 
spending.
  This is not about chocolate-covered peanuts. This is about helping 
farmers diversify their businesses and providing consumers with new 
products on which they are willing to spend a little extra.
  Farmers are facing very challenging economic times, and I think we 
should be doing everything we can to support farmers in finding new 
markets, whether that is by processing milk to make yogurt, making jam 
from wild blueberries, or even coating peanuts in chocolate.
  Ironically, on the same day that the administration released its 
rescission proposal, the USDA's Economic Research Service released a 
report on how successful VAPG has been. The report shows that 
businesses that receive VAPG funding provide more jobs for their 
communities and were less likely to fail than similar nonrecipient 
businesses. VAPG works. In Maine and across the country, a little 
support to farmers through VAPG can go a long way.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule for H.R. 3 as well as the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland 
Security Committee, I am opposing all of the bills under this rule, 
including the underlying bill, but in particular H.R. 3, which is a 
danger to childcare development, Pell grants, and election security, 
meaning, Mr. Speaker, they are cutting those dollars.
  But the main element of my opposition is the crisis on the border. I 
want this House to recognize that you have individuals who have crossed 
for humanitarian reasons who are being treated and violated like in a 
third-world country that would be inhumane.
  You have Guatemalans, some of whom now are facing the tragedy of the 
volcano, coming who speak an indigenous language, and they are lumped 
together 50, 100 at a time.
  Their children are snatched away from them. This is a policy that is 
going to be further funded by the rescissions in this bill. It is 
imperative that anyone who has a humane bone in their body stand up 
against ripping children away from individuals.
  As a member of the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee 
on the Judiciary, that was not the policy. The policy was for children 
who came unaccompanied, not children with their parents.
  In addition, you have children who have not seen their mothers--who 
are 4 years old, who are infants--for weeks at a time and cannot speak 
English.
  Again, you have Guatemalans who are not speaking Spanish, English, or 
a language that is interpreted in the courts. It is an indigenous 
language. They do not know that you are ruling against them, as it 
relates to their plea for asylum.
  This bill and the rescissions will give more funding for those kinds 
of inhumane deportation and more dollars to separate children from 
their parents.
  For God's sake, this is not America. We must stop it now. Oppose the 
bill.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I will point out that one of the things that the 
Military Construction and VA appropriation does fund is the 
improvements to the VA Electronic Health Record. This is something that 
has been sought by this Congress and previous administrations going 
back to 2006. I am happy to say that in this appropriations bill it is 
being taken care of.
  Three administrations is too long for that to happen. I am grateful 
for the focus that the administration put on this problem, and I am 
grateful that they have finally gotten it solved.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have no doubt of the importance of the legislation this rule makes 
in order. However, I struggle to believe that this is the most 
important work we could be doing today.
  Instead, perhaps we can fix the broken immigration laws that 
President Trump has cited as his reason for separating families and 
children on our Nation's border. Fear and intimidation are no way to 
make policy. The Trump administration has picked the cruelest way to 
punish those who are fleeing violence.
  The result is broken families and lost children. Since October, more 
than 700 children have been inhumanely separated from their parents. 
More than 100 of these children are less than 4 years old.
  Using family separation as a scare tactic to prevent families from 
coming to this country will never work, and it is in the same cruel 
mindset as using rape as a weapon of war. These families come here 
looking for one thing: shelter. Punishing a mother by separating her 
from her child is not only immoral; it is inhumane. It goes against the 
fundamental human right of the family unit.
  Separating them from their parents is simply anti-American. However, 
for some reason, President Trump has repeatedly said that he is bound 
by the law to rip these families apart.

                              {time}  1330


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California will state 
her parliamentary inquiry.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, what is the law requiring the separation of 
parents and children at the border?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not respond to inquiries 
regarding the status of the law. That is a matter for debate.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the reason the Speaker can't answer 
is that the law simply doesn't exist. However, this is the United 
States Congress. We make the laws. But unfortunately, this isn't what 
we are doing here. No. Instead, we are taking up a bill to put more 
guns on public lands and cut funding for energy efficiency research. 
For this reason and many other concerns I have with the number of 
amendments which were not made in order, I must oppose this rule.
  This Congress is now the most closed Congress in history. It is 
forcing its Members to vote on bills which haven't been given a real 
debate. It is clear the majority is attempting to rewrite history.
  Mr. Speaker, Canada did not burn the White House. The American people 
know better. None of the work we do today will undo their deficit-
busting bill, nor will it reunite the families the administration has 
destroyed.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and 
the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, as of June 7, 2018, Republicans in the 115th Congress 
have provided for consideration of over 1,200 amendments on the House 
floor. Over 570 of those amendments have been proposed by Democrats, 
480 proposed by Republicans, and 190 were bipartisan. That is 46 
percent Democratic amendments, 39 percent Republican amendments, and 16 
percent were bipartisan.
  By contrast, during the entire 111th Congress, that was the last 
Congress where Speaker Pelosi was the Speaker of the House, Democrats 
were in the majority. During the entire 111th Congress, Speaker Pelosi 
allowed less than 1,000 amendments to be considered on the House floor, 
and, in fact, the Democratic majority blocked 3,000 amendments, with 
roughly 2,400 during, actually, the first session, the first year of 
that Congress.
  These numbers include measures where the summaries of amendments 
submitted are publicly available, but at that time, due to the lack of 
the majority's transparency, the number is likely much higher that were 
blocked.
  Now, look, Chairman Sessions of the Rules Committee has made it a 
point

[[Page H4868]]

to ensure that every single Member has the opportunity to submit their 
amendments and come to the Committee on Rules and share their thoughts 
and concerns. And as the gentlewoman knows well, there is no clock in 
the Rules Committee. Any Member can come and spend as much time with us 
as they wish.
  Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of two 
important pieces of legislation: H.R. 5895, the Energy and Water, 
Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs 
Appropriations Act of 2019, and H.R. 3, the Spending Cuts to Expired 
and Unnecessary Programs Act. Both are responsible measures that take 
seriously our responsibility to be vigilant stewards of the Federal 
taxpayers' dollars.
  I want to thank the President for his leadership in eliminating 
unused and unnecessary funding from past years, a responsible approach 
that until this President has been underutilized. I urge my colleagues 
today to support the rules and the two underlying pieces of 
legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Mrs. Torres is as follows:

           An Amendment to H. Res. 923 Offered by Ms. Torres

       In the first section, strike ``printed in part A of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution'' and insert ``specified in section 4 of this 
     resolution, modified by adding at the end the text of H.R. 
     5805 as introduced,''.
       Add at the end the following new section:
       ``Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in the first section is 
     as follows:
       `Page 165, after line 14, insert the following:
       Sec. 239. For an additional amount for the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, $1,138,000,000 for the programs and 
     activities authorized in the VA MISSION Act of 2018 and the 
     amendments made by such Act, which shall be in addition to 
     amounts otherwise made available in this Act for such 
     purpose, of which--
       (1) $600,000,000 shall become available for the Veterans 
     Community Care Program under section 1703 of title 38, United 
     States Code, as amended by the VA MISSION Act of 2018, on the 
     effective date specified in section 101(b) of such Act; and
       (2) $253,000,000 shall be available for the Family 
     Caregivers Program under section 1720G of title 38, United 
     States Code, as amended by such Act:

     Provided, That amounts made available under this section 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2020. ''.
                                  ____


        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. BURGESS. 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.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on:
  Adopting the resolution, if ordered; and
  Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 185, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 240]

                               YEAS--227

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     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)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     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
     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--185

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)

[[Page H4869]]


     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     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)
     Lamb
     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
     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
     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
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Beatty
     Bilirakis
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Carbajal
     Davis, Danny
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Lynch
     Noem
     Palazzo
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Thompson (MS)
     Vargas
     Walz

                              {time}  1357

  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. ABRAHAM and Mrs. WALORSKI changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. POLIQUIN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call No. 240.
  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

  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225, 
noes 187, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 241]

                               AYES--225

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     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)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     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
     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--187

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bass
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     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)
     Lamb
     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
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     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
     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
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Beatty
     Bilirakis
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Carbajal
     Davis, Danny
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Lynch
     Noem
     Palazzo
     Polis
     Rokita
     Vargas
     Walz
     Wilson (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1405

  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.

                          ____________________