PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO HOUSE AMENDMENT TO SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 695, CHILD PROTECTION IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2017; Congressional Record Vol. 164, No. 201
(House of Representatives - December 20, 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 H10477-H10483]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO HOUSE AMENDMENT TO 
SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 695, CHILD PROTECTION IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2017

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 1183 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1183

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 695) 
     to amend the National Child Protection Act of 1993 to 
     establish a voluntary national criminal history background 
     check system and criminal history review program for certain 
     individuals who, related to their employment, have access to 
     children, the elderly, or individuals with disabilities, and 
     for other purposes, with the Senate amendment to the House 
     amendment to the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in 
     the House, without intervention of any point of order, a 
     motion offered by the chair of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or his designee that the House concur in the 
     Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate 
     amendment with an amendment consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 115-88. The Senate amendment and the motion 
     shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable 
     for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to its adoption without intervening motion.

  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 Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.

                              {time}  1645


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for 
consideration of the Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 
2019. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, the appropriations package in front of us represents the 
fourth appropriations package to fully fund the government for fiscal 
year 2019. While the Congress has completed its work with respect to 
almost 75 percent of total discretionary spending, including, notably, 
the Department of Defense, Health and Human Services, Education, and 
Labor, roughly 25 percent of this discretionary spending remains 
outstanding. Today's bill will provide a short-term continuing 
resolution to February 8, 2019, to ensure that the entirety of the 
Federal Government remains open and operating while the Congress 
continues its work.
  I have said on numerous occasions both on this floor and elsewhere 
that continuing resolutions are not the best way to fund the 
government, but allowing the government to shut down, even in part, is 
much costlier and much worse. It is our obligation to our constituents 
to keep all of the government open and operating to provide needed 
services to them.
  Mr. Speaker, from an appropriations perspective, this year has been 
remarkably successful. Earlier this year, we sent 5 of the 12 
appropriations bills to the President for his signature before the 
beginning of the fiscal year. That is the best record in 22 years.

[[Page H10478]]

  With hard work from both sides of the aisle in both Houses of 
Congress, our earlier efforts represented a return to regular order and 
to the normal legislative process. For us to drop the ball now, at the 
end of the year and at the end of this Congress, would negate much of 
the good work that has already been done this year.
  As I have said so often on this floor, the primary obligation of the 
Congress is to fund the American Government and to keep it open and 
operating. The American people deserve no less. With this package under 
consideration today, Congress will do just that with respect to 7 of 
the 12 main spending bills: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies; Commerce, Justice, Science, 
and the Related Agencies; Financial Services and General Government; 
Homeland Security; Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies; State, 
Foreign Operations, and Related Programs; and, finally, Transportation, 
Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies.
  As my colleagues can see from this list, the group of bills covers a 
broad array of vital government programs the American people rely upon. 
It includes key departments like the Department of Homeland Security, 
the Food and Drug Administration, the Border Patrol, and the State 
Department.
  It covers services like funding roads, operating security checkpoints 
at airports, passport services, food inspection services, importation 
and exportation of goods and services, banking services, and thousands 
of other important government functions.
  Perhaps just as importantly, it covers approximately 800,000 
employees, about half of whom would need to be furloughed and about 
half of whom would likely be deemed essential and be required to work 
without a guarantee of pay.
  While continuing resolutions are in no way, shape, or form the best 
way to do business, the measure before us today will at least ensure 
that the government remains open and operating and will continue to 
provide the needed services for our Nation and our constituents. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues in the coming weeks to complete 
our work on funding the government for fiscal year 2019.
  Importantly, this bill also includes funding for disaster relief and 
to secure the border. The American people have made their voices heard, 
and they have told us time and time again that they want additional 
border security. To that end, this bill appropriates $5 billion for the 
purpose of securing the border.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill also appropriates $7.8 billion for 
disaster relief. As we have seen time and again in places like New 
Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, the East Coast after Hurricane Sandy, 
and my own hometown of Moore, Oklahoma, after devastating tornadoes, 
disasters require a helping hand. By appropriating these funds we offer 
our fellow Americans who have been afflicted by disasters the help that 
they need and require.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying 
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes.
  Let me begin, Mr. Speaker, by again thanking my colleague from 
Oklahoma for the work that he and other appropriators did to try to 
keep the government running. We are here right now not because of the 
appropriators. We are here right now because Donald Trump has made a 
mess of things.
  Mr. Speaker, it is surreal that we are here today, days before the 
end of a Congress, hours before one-quarter of the Federal Government 
runs out of money, scrambling to keep the lights on at the brink of the 
third Republican government shutdown this year, because we are not 
dealing with divided government. Republicans today control not only 
this Chamber, but also the Senate and the White House. They have been 
fighting among themselves for weeks over whether and how to keep the 
Government of the United States open for business. It would be comical 
if it weren't so serious.

  This proposal that we are being given right now is not a solution. It 
is a political temper tantrum all to please one man: the person sitting 
at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It doesn't solve the disagreements in this 
Chamber or the Senate, and it doesn't prevent the shutdown America is 
facing.
  This President and this majority ran on fear during the last 
election: fear of immigrants, fear of those seeking asylum, and fear of 
anyone who doesn't look exactly like them.
  What happened, Mr. Speaker? They were resoundingly rejected. The 
American people chose a different course. They don't want a government 
that reacts only to the wants of the President's ever-shrinking base, 
the small segment of society that actually supports his offensive 
border wall.
  Let me remind my colleagues, according to polling, Americans, by a 2-
to-1 margin, want the President to compromise on the wall to avoid a 
shutdown. This proposal is exactly what the President may want, but it 
is precisely what the American people rejected.
  The Senate passed a bipartisan continuing resolution to keep the 
lights on. This House was prepared to pass it until the President's 
latest outburst. Governing by tweet isn't governing at all. If the 
President's most senior advisers are Fox & Friends and Rush Limbaugh, 
maybe we shouldn't be surprised when we find ourselves here today.
  But this morning, this House came together to pass same-day authority 
so the majority could move quickly on a bipartisan, short-term 
continuing resolution. Democrats joined our Republican colleagues in 
this effort to provide the tools needed to keep the lights on. This is 
how you are using them?
  This isn't a serious plan. To even vote for disaster relief, this 
bill requires you to support the President's offensive wall. Democrats 
and the American people have already rejected this false choice.
  This wall is a medieval solution to a 21st century problem. What is 
next, Mr. Speaker, money for a moat around Mar-a-Lago?
  This will not become law, what we are doing right now. This is a 
waste of time. If it even passes here--which is a big if--it is dead on 
arrival in the Senate. I say to my friend: The clock is ticking. Let's 
get to work on a clean bill that can make it to the President. This 
isn't that. This is just offensive.
  Again, let me remind those in this Chamber the Senate, in a 
bipartisan way, came together by a voice vote and supported a 
continuing resolution, a clean CR, to keep the government running for 7 
weeks. That is it. It is all we are proposing here today. This Chamber 
can't even do that. This is a disgrace.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject it, and 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 make a couple of comments before I yield to my 
friend from Alabama and fellow Rules Committee member for 3 minutes.
  Let me just quickly point out that we are really talking about border 
security here. This clearly isn't simply a wall. Frankly, there is not 
enough money involved here. This is a matter of providing additional 
security.
  It is important to note the Border Patrol union itself fully supports 
what the President is trying to do. This is the type of thing they have 
asked us to provide them so that they can provide us with the security 
that we tasked them to give to the American people.
  The disaster relief is something I think probably both sides should 
be able to agree on. We know there is a genuine disaster. We have had 
fires, and we have got hurricane relief. I have a very detailed summary 
here of all the various items that would be taken care of. I would be 
more than happy to provide that to my friend. That is something that we 
should do before we go home. That is something, frankly, Americans have 
a right to count on.
  I remember--and I was with my friends in this endeavor--during the 
Sandy debate and how desperately we needed aid at that point in time 
and how severe the reaction was when Congress went home without getting 
that done and came back in January. I

[[Page H10479]]

think the reaction was appropriate. So this disaster relief is 
extraordinarily important, and I hope that we focus on that in our 
debate as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Byrne), who is a fellow member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to add my support to this rule.
  When did protecting the American people--knowing who is entering our 
country and having a secure border--become some kind of radical or 
partisan idea?
  I am stunned to see the length to which some of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle will go simply to oppose enhanced border 
security, including a border wall. In fact, it seems they are willing 
to shut down the Federal Government instead of supporting President 
Trump's urgent request for $5 billion to fund the border wall.
  What is especially strange is that some of my colleagues on the other 
side have already supported a wall in the past. Some have even voted in 
support of a border wall. What has changed?
  I think the answer is very simple. I think some of my colleagues are 
so committed to appeasing the so-called resistance that they find 
themselves opposing a very basic and commonsense idea like border 
security just because they want to earn points from the most extreme 
part of their political base.
  This is really not a complicated issue. This is about the safety and 
security of the American people. This is about keeping terrorists out 
of our country. This is about keeping illegal drugs out of our country. 
This is about keeping criminals out of our country. This shouldn't be 
hard.

  Why am I so passionate about this? Because this is a critical issue. 
When I talk to the people I represent back in Alabama, they are 
passionate about it. This is one of the top issues I hear about at 
events and townhalls throughout Alabama. In fact, the phones in my 
office have been ringing all day with people urging us to stand strong, 
secure our borders, and build the wall.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this is a fight worth fighting. I think pushing 
to ensure the safety of the American people is worthy, and it is 
absolutely a critical fight. So I urge my colleagues to stop playing to 
the resistance. Come back toward a commonsense idea like securing our 
border. Pass this amendment. Pass this funding bill, and ensure the 
safety of the American people.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if I could just respond to my colleague, if I thought 
for one second building a stupid wall would somehow secure our borders, 
I would be for it. But every expert I have talked to, including people 
on the border, say they need more personnel and say we ought to invest 
more in electronic equipment to surveil our borders. I don't know of a 
wall that has ever been built that people haven't climbed over or dug 
under. This is ridiculous.
  By the way, when the President campaigned, he said that he wanted to 
build a wall and that Mexico was going to pay for it. Now he wants to 
build a wall that by all accounts is going to be useless in terms of 
protecting our borders, and he wants the American taxpayers to pay for 
it.
  Well, you have $5 billion. How about rebuilding our roads and our 
bridges that are crumbling in this country?
  If you have got $5 billion that you don't care what you do with, how 
about investing it in affordable housing?
  Or how about dealing with the issue of climate change?
  Or how about making sure that some of the 40 million-plus Americans 
in this country who don't have enough to eat have food?
  Wasting money on something so ridiculous is offensive.
  So we want border security. We are happy to work with you on enhanced 
border security, but this isn't it. This is a campaign slogan. This is 
a waste of taxpayer money. It is ridiculous. It is embarrassing. For 
the President to want to shut down the government over this is 
disgraceful.
  By the way, on the disaster package, just so my colleagues understand 
this, the disaster package in this bill does not include $600 million 
in nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico. So unless this Congress takes 
immediate action, 1.4 million of our fellow citizens of Puerto Rico 
stand to suffer deep cuts in food assistance, causing many of them to 
go hungry. That is shameful. Where is the help for them?

                              {time}  1700

  Of course, we should pass a clean CR to ensure that our government 
remains open. But my friend talked about disaster assistance, and I 
just wanted to point out that one thing that is missing in their 
disaster package is the nutrition money for our fellow citizens of 
Puerto Rico. I am sure there are others.
  We are rushing this thing through. There is no transparency here. We 
thought we had a deal to keep the government open for 7 weeks. Then, 
all of a sudden, I guess the President tuned into ``Fox and Friends'' 
and changed his mind. You don't know where this President is going to 
be day-to-day or hour-to-hour or minute-to-minute. But he is the guy 
who said that he would be proud to own a shutdown.
  Well, I think it would be a disaster for this country to have another 
shutdown. I think it would be expensive. I think we should to do 
everything we can to avoid it, and that is why we ought to send a clean 
CR back to the Senate.
  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 just want to make a couple of comments with regard to 
the statement my good friend made.
  We are actually talking, really, in a sense, not about not $5 
billion. We are talking about $3.3 billion. The Senate bill that passed 
actually added $1.7 billion, which is a tacit admission that physical 
barriers do make a difference.
  We all agree that the amount of money we are talking about here would 
not build an entire wall. Quite the opposite, it would just provide 
some physical barriers at points along the border that are weak and 
need additional security.
  My friend says that nobody is interested in this. Frankly, the border 
security unions are. The Border Patrol has endorsed the President's 
proposal. The men and women we have tasked to defend our borders tell 
us this is something that they need. They have gone so far as to say 
they would support a government shutdown.
  I hope we don't have that. I am not for a government shutdown. I 
never have been for a government shutdown. But this is not an 
extraordinary amount of money in a bill, frankly, that totals well over 
$250 billion, when you add up all the spending. And being able to put 
additional security there is important.
  To my friend's point about Puerto Rico, I think that is a good point. 
I think that is a fair point to make. We should probably go back and 
take a look at that. I do know that Americans desperately need 
assistance in a variety of areas, Puerto Rico included. Agriculture 
help is necessary, as well as help for rebuilding military 
installations and schools that have been destroyed. Why can't we get 
that done?
  This is a very substantial package. There is actually more money in 
this bill for disaster relief for American citizens than there is for 
additional border security. So I think this is an eminently sensible 
proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge its adoption and the adoption of the rule, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I don't really want to prolong this debate much longer here. Every 
day with this administration is another self-made crisis, another 
demonstration of bad faith.
  No one can trust what comes out of the White House, what the 
President says. His word is worthless. And here we are, as evidence of 
that fact.
  Mr. Speaker, the government is set to run out of money tomorrow. We 
are running out of time to act. But, apparently, this is exactly what 
President Trump wants.
  Last week, he said he would be ``proud to shut down the government.'' 
Today, he confirmed he wouldn't even sign a clean CR to keep our 
government open for just a few more weeks.
  It is irresponsible and abhorrent to attach funding for his offensive 
border wall to a bill to keep the lights on.

[[Page H10480]]

That is why, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up the Senate amendment to H.R. 695, 
which is the clean CR that has already passed the Senate by a voice 
vote. Every Democrat and every Republican stood together and passed the 
CR. It wasn't controversial over there. Somehow, it is controversial 
here.
  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. Duncan of Tennessee). Is there objection 
to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Mitchell), my good friend.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, we all took an oath. I know we remember 
that oath--for me, it was pretty meaningful; it was my first oath of 
office--to keep our citizens safe, to protect them, protect them at our 
borders, protect them in the case of disasters.
  In fact, in the past, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have supported a border wall, border protection. But now, since the 
name ``President Trump'' is on it, it is evil; it is bad. How 
politically convenient.
  I remind you of the oath we took to protect the citizens in this 
Nation whom, apparently, we are so ready to toss aside when it is 
politically expedient.
  You talk about a deal that was made. The Senate may have made 
whatever deal they wished to make. I am unaware that we work for the 
United States Senate, Mr. Speaker.
  I represent the people of the 10th Congressional District, and I will 
tell you what they say. They want our borders secure. They want us to 
take care of people in disasters. There are heartaches for the folks in 
Florida, George, and California who were devastated by disasters. They 
ask why we can't fund disaster relief for those people.

  Please, let's not talk about a deal that was made in the other House, 
because we are not responsible to them. We are responsible to the 
people who elected us.
  One last point: We are at this point of struggling over keeping the 
government open--and let's be honest about it, it is part of the 
government. The other side of the aisle talks about shutting down the 
government. It is about 20 percent, 25 percent of the government.
  We are at this point because the Senate won't make a deal that 
doesn't protect the fairly tenuous position that the future Speaker has 
on the other side of the aisle, and she doesn't want to make a deal.
  I spent 35 years in private business. Compromise is the way it works. 
A compromise was offered and summarily rejected within minutes in the 
Senate by Mr. Schumer and then by Ms. Pelosi.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule, pass the resolution, and 
send it back to the Senate and tell them to do their job.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just respond to the gentleman that we are all for 
compromise. This 7-week CR is a compromise. The clean CR is a 
compromise. In a bipartisan way, unanimously in the United States 
Senate, they accepted it. The President said he was for it. Then he 
changed his mind after watching ``Fox and Friends'' or listening to 
some right-wing radio host.
  The gentleman talks about protecting the border. We want to protect 
the border. We want to invest money in things that will actually 
protect the border, not in a press release, not in a sound bite, not in 
something that is a total waste of money, like a wall.
  But what about the fact that the President is going to shut the 
government down over a stupid wall and that means that the men and 
women who work for the Department of Homeland Security, the people who 
protect our borders, will not get paid, and we are not going to support 
them?
  One of my Republican colleagues, when he was faced with that 
question, said: ``It's actually part of what you do when you sign up 
for any public service position.''
  Really? That is how we treat and respect the men and women who are 
charged with protecting our borders? We turn our backs on them during 
the holiday season? Merry Christmas. We are not going to pay you.
  What they need, if you go to the border and talk to them, are more 
personnel. They want us to invest in more electronic equipment to help 
them surveil the border. They will tell you that this idea of a wall is 
dumb. It doesn't work. It is not going to protect this country. It is a 
waste of money.
  We had a deal to move this CR forward, and the President changed his 
mind. He reneged on his word. He didn't keep his promise. And here we 
are.
  So, as Republicans fight with Republicans here in the House, 
thankfully, the Senate, in a bipartisan way, came up with a solution. 
There was a compromise. Democrats are willing to support that 
compromise. But, somehow, it is not enough.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I know what it is like to be waiting on 
disaster aid and not getting it. Among other things, this potential or 
so-called disaster aid is missing dollars needed by the people of 
Puerto Rico. I walked the streets and saw how desperate the need was. 
It doesn't even include the $600 million in assistance for Puerto Rico 
to deal with food nutrition.
  I remember, in the time of Hurricane Harvey, we begged for an 
extension for the food nutrition program called Disaster Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program, and in 3 days, we served 30,000 people. 
You have to feel the pain to understand.
  Really, Mr. Speaker, this is a sham and a shame, because Republicans 
are in the United States Senate--let the American people understand 
that--and they fostered this compromise. They came together. They have 
sent it to the President. They spoke to the President. The President 
agreed that we would do it in this manner and that we would look at 
this issue on the other side of 2019.
  What happened here? A callous disregard of Border Patrol agents; 
callous disregard of Customs and Border Protection; callous disregard 
of the National Guard and the military who are down at the border, who 
are out there every day; and a callous disregard of Jakelin, the 7-
year-old who died because we don't have adequate health facilities, 
medical care, medevac, and the kind of decent living conditions--yes, 
decent--that are warranted.
  We are shutting down Commerce and Justice. We don't have enough 
judges at the border. We don't have enough judges to deal with the 
asylum cases.
  So if these folks want border security, it is not just a wall. It is 
technology. It is the agents. It is understanding that human beings are 
coming across the border. It is medical care. It is, as well, the 
security that we need.
  So I am here to say, Mr. Speaker, as I close, what a sham and a 
shame. Let's get the Senate bill and put it on the floor.
  Yesterday, I introduced H.R. 7332 that says no American tax dollars 
will be paid for the wall. Mexico will pay for it. Border security will 
be based upon technology, personnel, and barriers.
  Let's pass that bill and pass the CR from the Senate.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, sometimes, in the heat of debate, it is easy to miss 
what the real essence of the dispute is.
  When I vote for the rule--and I don't expect my friend to vote for 
the rule; that is always a partisan exercise--but when I vote for the 
underlying legislation, I will actually be voting to fund the 
government. If my friends vote ``no,'' they will be voting not to fund 
the government. So if they are worried about funding the government, 
all they have to do is vote for this bill, because it funds the 
government.

  The second thing I will be voting for is disaster relief. My friends 
have said that there are other areas that are worthy of relief. That is 
probably true. I don't have any quarrel with that. But I wouldn't vote 
against this disaster relief because it wasn't enough. I would

[[Page H10481]]

vote for this and then try to get additional in the time that we have 
remaining.
  Finally, I will be voting for enhanced border security. We all know 
we have a problem. We all know that our border is not as secure as we 
would like. There is a debate over wall versus no wall. This really 
isn't a wall.
  The wall would be $25 billion. Our friends have offered $1.7 billion. 
The President has been the one who has compromised, who has come back 
with $5 billion. So we are talking about $3.3 billion for various 
physical barriers at spots that we all agree would almost certainly 
work, done with the cooperation of our own people at Homeland Security.
  Finally, we are talking about not paying border agents. Border agents 
have told us this is what they need. That is what their union has said. 
That is what their elected representatives said.
  We want to do what the President has proposed. The President isn't 
shutting down the government. The President is willing to sign 
legislation that funds all the government. He has asked for disaster 
relief, something that should not be controversial in this Chamber, in 
my view, but sometimes is.
  Finally, he has asked for an awfully modest amount of money to 
provide additional security along the border that the Border Patrol 
itself has asked for. That is really what is at issue.

                              {time}  1715

  So when you vote against this legislation, you will be the ones 
voting to shut down the government, not the President, not my 
colleagues in this Chamber, not the Senate and whatever they decide to 
do in their infinite wisdom, but a ``no'' vote on the underlying 
legislation is a vote to shut down the government.
  A ``yes'' vote for the rule, which my friends would differ with, and 
that is fair enough, but a ``yes'' vote for the underlying legislation 
is the vote to keep the government open, take care of the disasters 
that we are faced with, and provide modest additional support for our 
border agents and Border Patrol.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just need to correct the Record on a few 
things here.
  It was the President who said he would be proud to shut the 
government down. My colleague may recall not too long ago the President 
had a meeting with Speaker-designate Pelosi and Leader Schumer over in 
the Senate. He bragged about it on camera.
  The President invited the cameras in, and he said: I would be proud 
to own a shutdown. That is what he said.
  So we know where the President stands on this. He doesn't care about 
shutting the government down. We should.
  The gentleman said that votes on rules are always partisan. Well, for 
the most part they are, but not this morning--not this morning.
  My Republican friends brought a martial law rule to the floor, which 
we don't really like because it basically condenses the process and we 
don't have a lot of time to look at things. But nonetheless, we said we 
would vote for it.
  Almost every Democrat voted with Republicans to move this so-called 
martial law rule forward so that we could bring up the Senate-passed 
continuing resolution today and keep the government running and be able 
to pay the men and women who protect our borders. So we came in good 
faith, and we did that.
  We want border security. We just think wasting billions of dollars on 
a stupid wall that doesn't do anything to protect our country is the 
wrong way to go.
  So if you want to vote to keep the government open, then you should 
vote with us to defeat the previous question because, if we defeat the 
previous question, then I will bring up the Senate-passed continuing 
resolution, and we can all vote for it. We can all keep the government 
running. We can all go home and have a merry Christmas and a happy new 
year. That is how simple it is.
  My Republican friends are bringing a rule to the floor that says 
that, if you vote for this rule, there is no separate vote on the 
border wall. It is all together.
  They know what is going to happen. If it passes the House, it will go 
over to the Senate, and they are not going to accept this. They have 
already had a bipartisan compromise. They had a deal with the President 
until he changed his mind.
  So if you want to keep the government open, then vote with the 
Democrats on defeating the previous question, and we will bring up a 
clean CR and we will do the right thing. We will do what we thought we 
were going to be doing this morning until the Republicans got into a 
fight with one another, and here we are.
  Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman how many more speakers he 
has.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close whenever my friend is.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am looking at a headline here today. It says: ``U.S. 
stocks clobbered, with Dow losing nearly 500 points, amid White House 
drama over government shutdown.''
  Mr. Speaker, creating chaos in the stock market is how a drama queen 
might act, but it is not how any President should behave. This is 
totally manufactured by the White House crisis. This is ridiculous that 
we are at this point, after all the agreements that have been reached 
in the Senate and, we thought, here in the House.
  The President turned the TV set on and started watching FOX News and 
got carried away and now is reneging on his agreement. That is 
unfortunate.
  But I would again say to my colleagues: Let us defeat the previous 
question, and we will bring up a clean CR. We will keep this government 
open, and we will do the right thing by the American people. And most 
importantly, we will make sure that the men and women who are 
protecting our border get paid during this Christmas holiday. It is the 
right thing to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend. As always, it is a spirited 
debate, and I want to be the first to say he is exactly right on a 
point he made. He did, earlier today, actually help me on this side of 
the aisle. I was evidently much more persuasive this morning than I 
have been this afternoon. But my friend is exactly right. On many 
occasions we have worked together, and I want to thank him for that.
  I also want to review just quickly what I see, at least, Mr. Speaker, 
as the main issues here.
  Number one, we all say we agree we want to keep the government 
funded, and I believe we all do. We don't believe in government 
shutdowns. We all believe the government ought to be funded. The 
underlying legislation does exactly that.
  I think all of us, on both sides of the aisle, care about Americans 
who have been hurt in disasters, and we have shown that time and time 
again. We have struggled on occasion, but we generally get aid to where 
it is needed; and if we overlook somebody, we try and come back and do 
that again.
  This bill makes a good-faith effort to provide billions of dollars in 
assistance to Americans who need it through no fault of their own, who 
have been ravaged by fire, who have been damaged by hurricanes, who 
face a variety of disasters, not just in the United States, but in the 
territories as well. If, again, we have overlooked something, we should 
go back and try and take care of that as well.

  Finally, it provides a very modest amount of money. Remember, this 
package, together, is over $250 billion. The difference between the two 
sides--unless my friends object to disaster relief, which I doubt they 
do--to be fair, is really $3.3 billion. That is what the President 
thinks he needs, an additional expenditure along the border, or $5 
billion if you want to characterize it that way. But the difference 
between the two sides is only $3.3 billion.
  That doesn't build a wall. We have been told the President is 
uncompromising. He is not uncompromising. He has been, for 2 years, 
talking about an

[[Page H10482]]

elaborate border security of $25 billion. This is 5, not 25. This would 
not build a wall, but this would provide additional security.
  We all know there are points along the way where physical barriers 
matter and make a difference. I think that is what the President is 
asking for.
  My friends worry, and rightly so, about people not getting paid 
during a government shutdown, which I hope we avoid, quite frankly. But 
the men and women on the border have asked the President to do this. 
They support what he is trying to do.
  When we send troops into combat, I listen to what they have to say 
and what they need. So does this Congress, and it tries to provide it.
  We put people in a difficult situation along the border, and they 
tell us these are the sorts of tools they need. The President is trying 
to respond in this case, and I think we should support him in that 
effort.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage all Members to support the rule. 
Today's bill represents the next step toward fulfilling our primary 
obligation as Members of Congress to fund the government.
  While continuing resolutions are never the best way to fund the 
government, today's measure will allow us to keep the entire government 
open and operating and providing needed services for our country and 
our constituents until February 8 of 2019. This measure will give 
Congress the time it needs to complete the rest of our work and fully 
fund the government through the end of fiscal year 2019.
  I want to applaud my colleagues for their work.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 1183 Offered By Mr. McGovern

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:
       ``That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 695) to 
     amend the National Child Protection Act of 1993 to establish 
     a voluntary national criminal history background check system 
     and criminal history review program for certain individuals 
     who, related to their employment, have access to children, 
     the elderly, or individuals with disabilities, and for other 
     purposes, with the Senate amendment to the House amendment to 
     the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, 
     without intervention of any point of order, a motion offered 
     by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his 
     designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the 
     House amendment to the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment 
     and the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall 
     be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the motion to adoption without intervening motion.
       Sec. 2. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment 
     to the Senate amendment to H.R. 695.''.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on:
  Adoption of the resolution, if ordered;
  The motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 88 with an 
amendment; and
  The motion to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments 
to H.R. 2606, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223, 
nays 178, not voting 31, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 468]

                               YEAS--223

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Balderson
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cloud
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     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
     Hern
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     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
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     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
     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

[[Page H10483]]


     Tipton
     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--178

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Crist
     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
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (MI)
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     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
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--31

     Black
     Capuano
     Comstock
     Costa
     Crowley
     Davis, Danny
     Duncan (SC)
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Hultgren
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jones (NC)
     Keating
     Kind
     Love
     Lowenthal
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Messer
     Noem
     Polis
     Ratcliffe
     Rosen
     Roskam
     Rush
     Scott, David
     Shea-Porter
     Sinema
     Swalwell (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Trott
     Walz

                              {time}  1750

  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts, Ms. ESTY of Connecticut, Messrs. CLYBURN, 
GOTTHEIMER, and POCAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  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. McGOVERN. 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 221, 
noes 179, not voting 32, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 469]

                               AYES--221

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Balderson
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cloud
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     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
     Hern
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     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
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     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
     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
     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--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
     Carbajal
     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
     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
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (MI)
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     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
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--32

     Black
     Capuano
     Comstock
     Crowley
     Davis, Danny
     Duncan (SC)
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Hultgren
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jones (NC)
     Keating
     Kind
     Love
     Lowenthal
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     MacArthur
     McCaul
     Messer
     Noem
     Polis
     Ratcliffe
     Rosen
     Roskam
     Schrader
     Scott, David
     Shea-Porter
     Sinema
     Swalwell (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Trott
     Walz

                              {time}  1800

  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.

                          ____________________