DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019; Congressional Record Vol. 164, No. 121
(House of Representatives - July 18, 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 H6501-H6554]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019


                             General Leave

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material on H.R. 6147, and that I may include 
tabular material on the same.

[[Page H6502]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 996 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 6147.
  Will the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren) kindly take the 
chair.

                              {time}  1623


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 6147) making appropriations for the Department of the 
Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2019, and for other purposes, with Mr. Hultgren (Acting 
Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
amendment No. 39 printed in House Report 115-830 offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) had been disposed of.


                 Amendment No. 42 Offered by Ms. Moore

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 42 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to terminate or restructure the Great Lakes Advisory 
     Board, a Federal advisory committee chartered under the 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentlewoman 
from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the committee for supporting me 
in my very important amendments last evening, and I have another very 
important amendment that is before the committee here today.
  Mr. Chair, I urge support for my amendment that would prevent the 
administration from dismantling the EPA's Great Lakes Advisory Board. I 
am so pleased that this bill has again rejected the President's 
proposal to gut the GLRI, and this amendment would prevent them from 
dismantling the advisory board.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a critical matter for anyone who drinks water. 
The Great Lakes provide drinking water to some 40 million people. Let 
me say that again. Forty million people depend on this resource for one 
of life's basic requirements, water, not to mention anglers and 
recreation.
  As an old African proverb goes, water has no enemies. So, hopefully, 
the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is something that we are going 
to recognize as having played a critical role in protecting and 
restoring one of America's greatest national treasures, a life-
sustaining element, water.
  Just to mention, not to bore people with a lot of statistics, but the 
Great Lakes contain about 21 percent of the world's surface freshwater 
and more than 80 percent, 85 percent, of the freshwater in North 
America. This is indispensable.
  As critical as this funding is, it is also important that the EPA 
receive advice and input from local stakeholders regarding priorities 
under that program. The Great Lakes Advisory Board provides such 
advice.
  EPA established the board in 2013 to provide independent advice to 
the EPA administration in its capacity as chair of the Federal Great 
Lakes Interagency Task Force. Some of the past activities of the 
advisory board have been providing the EPA with recommendations 
regarding what are the most significant stressors and needs for the 
Great Lakes ecosystem; providing the EPA with recommendations on ways 
to ensure effective public input into the Great Lakes action plan 
process; and providing advice on whether the GLRI should invest in 
efforts to understand long-term, future threats and communicate them to 
the Great Lakes community for action.
  In light of reports of efforts to undermine the board, on a 
bipartisan basis, I joined colleagues in writing to the EPA earlier 
this year to make clear that we support the establishment and 
maintenance of the board. My amendment would put teeth behind this 
letter and make it clear to the administration what congressional 
intent is regarding this important advisory board.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, this bill is consistent with years past that 
provided robust funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. 
Therefore, this is an initiative I can support and we accept.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentleman from California. 
He is a very effective leader on this issue. I appreciate him.
  An effective Great Lakes Advisory Board is vital to ensuring that the 
GLRI remains successful and impactful today and in the years to come.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Mullin

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 43 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enforce the final rule entitled ``Oil and Natural 
     Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and 
     Modified Sources'' published by the Environmental Protection 
     Agency in the Federal Register on June 3, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 
     35824).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds from 
enforcing the Obama administration EPA methane rule. This rule is 
currently facing litigation uncertainty, and Congress must act to block 
this job-killing regulation estimated to cost our economy $530 million 
annually.
  While oil and gas production has increased more than 25 percent since 
2005, related methane emissions have actually decreased almost 40 
percent during the same time period.
  It is counterproductive for the Federal Government to enact harmful 
regulations that cause inefficiencies, recklessly spend taxpayer 
dollars, and force hardship upon job-creating industries.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, the gentleman's amendment would block the 
EPA from regulating methane emissions from sources in the oil and gas 
sector.
  Methane is a primary component of natural gas and is a potent 
greenhouse gas with global warming potential more than 25 times greater 
than carbon dioxide.

                              {time}  1630

  In 2013, nearly one-third of the methane emissions in the United 
States came from oil and gas production, processing, transmission, and 
distribution. There is no doubt, no doubt at all that methane 
contributes to the increased levels of greenhouse gas concentrations, 
which will contribute to long-lasting changes in our climate such as 
rising global temperatures, sea level rising, changes in weather and 
precipitation patterns.

[[Page H6503]]

  Public health risks include more heat waves and drought, worsening 
smog, increased intensity of extreme weather events, and increasing the 
range of ticks and mosquitoes, which can spread diseases such as Lyme 
disease, West Nile Virus, and Zika.
  The disgraced former EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, tried to delay 
this rule, but the courts blocked that effort and ruled that the EPA 
cannot delay implementation. When is the majority going to stop the 
assault on the environment?
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, the EPA has imposed these substantial 
competitive barriers, despite the industry's significant reduction in 
methane emissions through their own initiatives and innovation.
  What is not known is that through the EPA's own analysis, it shows 
that methane emissions from hydraulically fractured gas wells have 
actually fallen dramatically. According to EPA data--not my data, but 
EPA data--methane emissions from oil and gas production declined by 38 
percent from 2005 to 2012, and methane emissions from hydraulically 
fractured natural gas wells have plummeted 73 percent since 2011.
  Total methane emissions from natural gas systems actually are down 11 
percent since 2005, despite the significant production increases over 
this time period. This is a prime example of market forces at work.
  American producers developed innovative means of capturing additional 
methane because doing so means they have more product to sell. 
Profitability, rather than a top-down Washington regulation, drove this 
unprecedented emissions reduction.
  In fact, in 2012 alone, voluntary methane emission reductions 
activities by the U.S. oil and gas industry generated $364 million in 
additional revenue.
  Unfortunately, the methane rule represents the kind of one-size-fits-
all policy that will actually stifle innovation and discourage further 
investment in emission reduction technology.
  Actually, as a result, the EPA's methane rule, if allowed to stand, 
will not only lead to economic harm, but environmental harm as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right to close, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, EPA was directed by the President to take a second look 
at the methane rule promulgated by the Obama administration. In 
conjunction with that review, EPA attempted to provide the regulating 
community with some certainty by postponing some implementation dates. 
However, the courts have blocked that from happening.
  In light of these challenges, the time is ripe for a temporary pause 
on the enforcement of these requirements, so I urge my colleagues to 
support the amendment.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close.
  Well, simply put, I urge our colleagues on both sides to come 
together and kill this job-killing regulation and support this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, as I said, I oppose this amendment. 
Climate change threatens the health and welfare for current and future 
generations.
  As the gentlemen have pointed out, Mr. Chairman, industry has moved--
has moved, in part, because of pressure from the EPA, and, in part, 
because of just the financial loss of allowing this methane gas to 
escape into the atmosphere. It is dollars that are burning up.
  These are precious resources that we are taking from the Earth, and 
we should make sure that we don't waste any of it, and that is why I 
think the EPA rule should not be delayed.
  As has been pointed out, industry has the ability to capture this 
methane. It has the ability to make money from it, and I want to just 
make sure that we encourage everyone in the industry to move forward.
  Mr. Chairman, let me the give you an example. The Bakken Oil Field, 
which is in North Dakota--I am very familiar with it because I spent 
many a summer in that area--burns brighter than the entire metropolitan 
area of the Twin Cities at night because of the flares from the methane 
that are being burnt. That energy should be captured. It should be 
saved. We should be conservationists for future generations. We must 
take action, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 44 Offered by Mr. Mullin

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 44 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows
       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to prepare, propose, or promulgate any regulation or 
     guidance that references or relies on the analysis contained 
     in--
       (1) ``Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for 
     Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866'', 
     published by the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 
     Carbon, United States Government, in February 2010;
       (2) ``Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the 
     Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 
     Executive Order 12866'', published by the Interagency Working 
     Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government, in 
     May 2013 and revised in November 2013;
       (3) ``Revised Draft Guidance for Federal Departments and 
     Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the 
     Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews'', published by the 
     Council on Environmental Quality on December 24, 2014 (79 
     Fed. Reg. 77802);
       (4) ``Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the 
     Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 
     Executive Order 12866'', published by the Interagency Working 
     Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government, in 
     July 2015;
       (5) ``Addendum to the Technical Support Document on Social 
     Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive 
     Order 12866: Application of the Methodology to Estimate the 
     Social Cost of Methane and the Social Cost of Nitrous 
     Oxide'', published by the Interagency Working Group on Social 
     Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government, in August 
     2016; or
       (6) ``Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the 
     Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 
     Executive Order 12866'', published by the Interagency Working 
     Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States 
     Government, in August 2016.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit funds from 
implementing the Obama administration's social cost of carbon rule. 
Congress and the American people have repeatedly rejected cap and trade 
proposals.
  The Obama administration continuously used social cost of carbon 
models, which could be easily manipulated in order to attempt to 
justify new job-killing regulations.
  The House has a clear, strong record of opposition to the social cost 
of carbon, voting at least 11 times to block, defund, or oppose the 
proposal, including H. Con. Res. 119, which we will be considering 
later this week.
  A carbon tax would be passed along to consumers, undermining the 
success of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act we passed last year.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

[[Page H6504]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very harmful rider, 
and it would prohibit the EPA from considering the social cost of 
carbon as part of rulemaking. The social cost of carbon is an estimate 
of economic damages associated with small increases of carbon dioxide 
emissions in a given year.
  It represents the best scientific information available, 
incorporating the impacts from carbon pollution into regulatory 
analyses. Weakening or eliminating use of social cost of carbon as a 
tool for Federal agencies that would ignore the sobering cost of 
health, environment, and economic impacts of extreme weather, rising 
temperatures, intensifying smog, and other impacts.
  We cannot afford to abandon science while trying to tackle climate 
change, so I strongly oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Gianforte).
  Mr. GIANFORTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. It would prohibit 
funds from being used to advance guidance or make rules that rely on 
Obama-era social cost of carbon guidance.
  I have heard from folks in Montana who cannot get a permit to expand 
a coal mine because they didn't account for the carbon released by the 
trains that would carry the coal. I have heard of the difficulties of 
building railroad bridges because they might allow more coal to be 
transported.
  We must stop relying on metrics that were designed by the keep-it-in-
the-ground crowd. Similar language passed, on a bipartisan vote, here 
in the House last September. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, garbage in equals garbage out. We have heard 
this on numerous occasions.
  And in this instance, the international--or correction--the 
Interagency Working Group has chosen to disregard the policy decisions 
from OMB Circular A-4 regarding how they set the modeling. And as a 
result of that, they have--interestingly, the analysis generated by 
them would have been 80 percent lower than the mean SCC value if they 
had followed the guidance. And the result overstates the benefits by at 
least four times relative to what it would be if only the national 
benefits were considered as OMB directs.
  This is a blatant pattern of disregard, Mr. Chairman, for the OMB 
guidance in order to inflate the SCC and begs the question how many 
input decisions were responsible where responsible people could 
disagree were selected in order only to inflate the SCC value.
  Let's restore the faith and vote for this amendment.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for bringing this 
amendment. It is an important amendment to people that matter very 
much.
  John Dingell is a man of integrity. I feel I know his heart. He has a 
huge heart, and we disagreed on many issues, but I know him as a man of 
integrity.
  He was told he had to push through the cap and trade that would have 
gotten into costing people for this so-called cost of carbon, and he 
said it is not only a tax, it is a great big tax, and he lost his 
chairmanship.
  But what John Dingell knows, what I know is when you start creating 
taxes on fuel, the people that get hammered the worst are the Nation's 
poorest among us. That is who it gets passed to. That is who gets 
crushed. Let's don't do this to the hardworking, poorest among us. 
Let's vote for the Mullin amendment.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reiterate again: We 
should be using the best scientific information available, and we 
should be incorporating the impacts from carbon pollution into 
regulatory analysis.
  When we see children being hospitalized because of intense smog, more 
people suffering respiratory and heart disease, and other impacts from 
that, we all pay for that. Whether we pay for it in emergency room 
visits, we pay for it in our insurance, there are many ways in which we 
are individually paying for the pollution that is created, let alone 
recognizing the effects it has on climate change.
  So, simply, again, we cannot afford to abandon science while trying 
to tackle climate change, and I strongly oppose the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 45 Offered by Ms. Moore

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 45 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. ___.  There is appropriated for grants for lead 
     reduction projects under section 1459B of the Safe Drinking 
     Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-19b) $10,000,000, to be derived 
     from a reduction of $10,000,000 in the amount provided in 
     this Act under the heading ``Environmental Protection 
     Agency--Environmental Programs and Management''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentlewoman 
from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today to offer an 
amendment to increase resources available to help address a scourge 
that is occurring in so many of our communities: lead poisoning.
  My district is facing its challenges like so many in our country, and 
the Federal Government must do its part by ensuring that we provide the 
resources to address this scourge.
  Two of the most prominent vectors are old housing and old water 
infrastructure, lateral lead pipes. My amendment would attempt to 
address just one of the sources of lead, old lateral lead pipes, while 
recognizing the need to address housing when the appropriate funding 
bill comes to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, we know that children throughout America are at risk of 
a major public health crisis given aging drinking water infrastructure 
and housing stock. In my district alone, there are tens of thousands of 
lead service lines that pose a threat to the public health of children.
  We have heard so much about Flint, Michigan, but I can tell you that 
lead poisoning in my district mirrors that of Flint, Michigan. I mean, 
Mr. Chairman, there just are no safe levels of lead for children.

                              {time}  1645

  As noted in a recent report by The Pew Charitable Trusts: ``In the 
absence of lead, hundreds of thousands of children would be more likely 
to realize their full potential thanks to higher grade point averages, 
a better chance of earning high school diplomas, and graduating from 
college, and a reduced likelihood of becoming teen parents or becoming 
convicted of crimes.'' Yet lead exposure remains a serious threat for 
far too many kids and their families in our country.
  The only way to remove lead pipes as a source of lead contamination 
is to completely remove them. That is the goal that I joined with my 
former and dearly loved colleague, the late great Louise Slaughter, in 
writing to urge the EPA in March of this year to update its lead and 
copper rule to require

[[Page H6505]]

the full replacement of lead service lines.
  But both public utilities and private homeowners are hard pressed to 
finance this needed work. It is my understanding that the average cost 
can be somewhere between $6,000 to $8,000 to replace such lines, which 
is an unimaginable sum for many of the households that our constituents 
live in.
  My amendment would provide funding for one of the newest tools that 
Congress created in the 2016 WRDA bill to help communities address lead 
pipes. This program provides grants for lead reduction projects that 
help reduce the concentration of lead in drinking water by, among other 
uses, providing assistance to low-income homeowners to replace lead 
service lines.
  Recognizing the need, Congress authorized the program at $60 million 
per year; yet it received only $10 million in the fiscal year 2018 
omnibus appropriations bill. While I would like to get closer to the 
authorized level, my amendment is modest and pragmatic and would simply 
continue funding for this program at the fiscal year 2018 level.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2018 bill included $10 
million for EPA to establish a grant program to provide funds to States 
and communities for lead reduction projects as authorized in the 2016 
WIIN Act.
  I might also point out that we now have a WIFIA program that is in 
the bill, which will allow for communities throughout the country to 
leverage up to $5 billion annually, and maybe more in the future, in 
their communities for such things as lead reduction within their towns 
and counties.
  Mr. Chairman, therefore, this is an amendment we can accept, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his stewardship 
and for his recognition of the importance of this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mrs. McMorris Rodgers

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 46 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency to implement, or to require the State of Washington to 
     implement, the final rule entitled ``Revision of Certain 
     Federal Water Quality Criteria Applicable to Washington'' 
     published on November 28, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 85417).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentlewoman 
from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my 
amendment to reverse the past administration's decision to implement 
unattainable water quality standards through the Environmental 
Protection Agency, EPA.
  I want to be clear that this amendment is not about opposing clean 
water standards. This is an amendment to support the work that 
Washington State, which has an impeccable environmental record, 
undertook.
  Washington developed their own standards for more than 190 pollutants 
after more than 3 years of research, outreach, and public feedback. 
These requirements would have already been some of the most rigorous 
nationwide, but EPA rejected them.
  For example, Spokane, the largest city in my district, invested $340 
million in the first-of-its-kind water treatment facility. This 
facility was celebrated, and the Republican mayor was invited to the 
White House by President Obama to celebrate this investment as a model 
for cities to work with residents to meet new environmental standards.
  The problem? Even this state-of-the-art facility would not be able to 
meet the immeasurable EPA standards.
  Spokane Valley, another major city in my district, is facing an 
estimated $1 billion for municipal and industrial compliance costs 
because of these rules. This will affect companies like Inland Empire 
Paper Company, which has been in business since 1911. Right now, the 
PCB standards that the previous administration imposed will force them 
to limit their cardboard recycling capabilities and force them to send 
these products to landfills.
  We often hear the term ``best available science.'' Well, these 
requirements cannot even be measured by the scientific community. They 
are unattainable.
  It is not new for the EPA to abuse their power in the name of clean 
water. In Washington State, we saw this abuse of Federal authority with 
the What's Upstream? campaign and its efforts to misrepresent our 
farmers and ranchers.
  When the Federal Government enacts a policy, it should not be pouring 
Federal dollars into lobbying for its support.
  Requirements that can't even be measured are an abuse of trust, and 
it is vital that we fix this problem now, which is why my amendment 
limits funds to implement EPA's water quality standards that preempt 
Washington State's.
  This amendment will allow flexibility and reasonable guidelines for 
States to move forward with water quality standards that can be 
measured and met.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, as has been pointed out, this amendment 
would prohibit the implementation of Washington State's revised water 
quality criteria. This standard protects communities from exposure to 
toxic contaminants, such as PCB, arsenic, and mercury in the fish that 
they eat.
  Being from Minnesota, Mr. Chairman, I understand fish advisories very 
well. I often see signs that limit fish consumption for pregnant women, 
and for children in particular.
  This action, however, would ignore court decisions and the voices of 
Native American Tribes, Asian-Pacific Islander communities, and fishing 
interests, all of which agree that seafood consumption standards are 
necessary in order to protect public health and water quality. In fact, 
the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission has asked that Congress 
reject this amendment because it puts the treaty rights that have been 
protected and the resources of Tribes in Washington at risk.
  Many native families subsist on the fish that they catch. Passing 
this amendment lowering water quality standards puts these families at 
greater risk of poisoning from their traditional foods.
  There is a lot of funding in this bill and some of the other bills 
that we have on the floor, Mr. Chairman, that work to prevent diabetes 
or to lower risk from diabetes with high blood sugar. Tribal nations 
are finding that returning to native foods, such as fish, is a great 
and excellent way of preventing or reducing the effects of diabetes.
  But after years of failure by Washington State to propose a 
protective standard, EPA finally put forth a standard which is more 
protective and meets the Clean Water Act requirements.
  Now, I understand that the regulated community has always been uneasy 
about what stricter standards might be. The revised water quality 
criteria take steps to address their concerns.
  The standard approved the use of new implementation tools, including 
a longer compliance schedule and intake credits. An intake credit means 
that, if the water comes to you with a pollutant and you don't 
discharge it, you are not responsible for having to remove it. So if 
you didn't pollute it, you are not responsible for cleaning it up.

[[Page H6506]]

  This amendment would circumvent all of the work that has been done to 
devise a standard that protects public health and water quality.
  Furthermore, Washington State officials believe that, despite the 
Congresswoman's good intentions--and I do believe that these are good 
intentions--this amendment would hurt the State of Washington. It would 
not actually help the dischargers.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly support her amendment.
  Under the previous administration, EPA proposed this stringent water 
regulation standard in Washington State without utilizing sound 
scientific data or evidence. In doing so, EPA created regulatory 
uncertainty and imposed unachievable permit levels on the State, which 
are costly and nearly impossible for industries to comply with.
  I encourage the State, the Tribes, and the EPA to continue to work 
together to find agreeable standards that improve water quality and 
human health while, simultaneously, providing clarity to the impacted 
communities and industries. In the meantime, though, I certainly urge 
my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, when humans consume contaminated fish, it 
results in serious health impacts, such as cancer, organ damage and 
reproductive dysfunction, or impairment in brain development.
  High fish-consuming communities--as I have mentioned, Native American 
Tribes and Asian-Pacific Islander communities--need the protections 
afforded by this revised water quality standard.
  I would like to, for the Record, again state that this amendment is 
not supported by the State of Washington or the Tribal communities in 
the area.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Clearly, more 
work needs to be done. I look forward to having this amendment not pass 
and for people to get down to doing the serious work that needs to be 
done to address the gentlewoman's concerns.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Loudermilk

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 47 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enforce the final rule entitled ``Greenhouse Gas 
     Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and 
     Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles--Phase 2'' published in the 
     Federal Register on October 25, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 73478 et 
     seq.), with respect to trailers.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, under the Clean Water Act, Congress 
gave the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate any 
air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new 
motor vehicle engines which may be reasonably anticipated to endanger 
public health or welfare.
  To avoid any ambiguity, Congress further defined the term ``motor 
vehicle'' as a ``self-propelled vehicle designed for transporting 
persons or property on a street or highway.''
  Until recently, regulators understood, as any reasonable person 
would, that the term ``self-propelled vehicle'' only applies to 
vehicles that can move on a roadway under their own power, such as 
cars, pickup trucks, semi trucks, SUVs, or vans. Never was a trailer, 
whether a utility trailer pulled by a pickup truck, a boat trailer 
pulled by a car, or a cargo trailer pulled by a semi considered a self-
propelled vehicle, and, therefore, these were never under the 
regulatory authority of the EPA.
  However, in 2016, without any authority of Congress, the EPA extended 
its regulatory authority and included cargo trailers in the rules for 
greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency standards for on-road, 
heavy-duty vehicles and engines. This rule will require cargo trailers 
to add components that, in some cases, have shown to improve 
aerodynamics, resulting in some improvement in fuel efficiency. 
However, this blanket policy, which has resulted from regulatory 
overreach, is not only costly to consumers, but, in some cases, is 
counterproductive to the Agency's own mission of promoting clear, clean 
air policies and practices.
  The additional weight of these aerodynamic components that are being 
mandated by the EPA will cause carriers to significantly limit the 
amount of cargo a single trailer can carry and still stay within DOT 
weight restrictions. Therefore, carriers have to put more trucks on the 
highway to carry the same amount of goods. Obviously, more trucks mean 
more carbon emissions without any measurable improved efficiency.
  If the EPA is able to enforce this regulation, it will not only be 
counterproductive to the environment, but also very costly to American 
consumers.

                              {time}  1700

  The trucking industry has made significant strides in recent years to 
improve fuel efficiency and reduce air pollution, without the 
government mandates.
  This amendment simply prevents the EPA from using any funds in this 
act to regulate trailers under the greenhouse gas rule. Congress never 
extended to the EPA the authority to regulate trailers under the Clean 
Air Act, because trailers are not and have never been considered self-
propelled vehicles.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this commonsense amendment, 
so we can put an end to this blatant regulatory overreach.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poe of Texas). The gentlewoman from Minnesota 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit the EPA from 
implementing or enforcing its greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency 
standards for medium-and heavy-duty engines.
  Specifically, this amendment carves out an exemption for trailers. 
These fuel standards were jointly developed by the EPA and the 
Department of Transportation, and they will improve fuel efficiency and 
cut carbon pollution to reduce the impacts of climate change.
  In fact, the EPA and DOT estimate that these standards will lower 
CO2 emissions by approximately 1 billion metric tons and cut 
fuel costs by $170 million. And cutting fuel costs is always a good 
thing to go do.
  These standards will achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions that 
are nearly equal to those associated with all the energy used by U.S. 
residents in 1 year.
  These efficiency fuel standards have been in place since 2016, and 
companies around the world have already made massive investments in the 
cleaner technology. Blocking the rule now would have negative 
consequences for human health and the environment, but also for the 
economy.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to

[[Page H6507]]

the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), and I thank him for his 
hard work on this amendment.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much, and I 
appreciate my colleague for introducing this amendment.
  He is absolutely right. The Clean Air Act never gave the EPA this 
authority. They just created it out of thin air.
  Their rationale is kind of interesting, because they took the 
authority that said that they could regulate new motor vehicles or new 
motor vehicle engines, and then the definition of new motor vehicle 
meaning any self-propelled vehicle designed for transporting persons or 
properties on a street or highway, and applied it to trailers. They are 
not self-propelled.
  When I asked Janet McCabe, who was the Acting Director of the Air 
Division of the EPA, when she came in front of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee how in the world could they do this, and I presumed she 
wasn't a lawyer and she said: Well, yes, I am.
  I was surprised, because the language is pretty clear. They don't 
have the ability to do that.
  She said: Well, you can't haul any goods if the trailer is not 
attached to a truck.
  That is not in the code. The code says that they only have authority 
over self-propelled vehicles. They created this out of whole cloth.
  It doesn't make any sense to allow an agency to create law. That is 
our job, and I told her that that day.
  I said: Look, you think this needs to be changed, bring in a bill, 
and we will discuss it.
  They have never done that. They don't have authority. We shouldn't 
fund something that is clearly illegal based on the plain English 
reading of the terms.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to join the 
gentleman from Virginia and myself in support of what is a commonsense 
upholding of our constitutional authority as the legislative branch, 
and I encourage a ``yea'' vote on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, this rule promotes a generation of cleaner, 
more fuel efficient trucks. President Obama was right when he said: 
``We are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and 
the last generation who can do something about it.''
  This amendment is harmful, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 48 Offered by Mr. Lamborn

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 48 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:


                       limitation on use of funds

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement or enforce the threatened species 
     listing of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse under the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Preble's meadow jumping mouse is a tiny rodent with 
a body approximately 3 inches long, a 4-to 6-inch long tail, and large 
hind feet adapted for jumping. This largely nocturnal mouse lives 
primarily in streamside ecosystems in Wyoming and Colorado.
  To evade predators, the Preble's meadow jumping mouse can jump up to 
18 inches high, like a miniature kangaroo. But this little acrobat's 
most famous feat was its leap onto the endangered species list back in 
May 1998, a move that has since hindered development on the front range 
of Colorado, from Colorado Springs, Colorado, to the Wyoming border.
  Among projects that have been affected are the Jeffco Parkway 
southeast of Rocky Flats, an expansion of the Chatfield Reservoir, and 
housing developments in El Paso County along tributaries of Monument 
Creek. Builders, landowners, and local governments in affected areas 
have incurred hundreds of millions of dollars in added costs because of 
this mouse. Protecting the Preble's mouse has even been placed ahead of 
protecting human life.
  On September 11, 2013, Colorado experienced a major flood event that 
damaged or destroyed thousands of homes, important infrastructure, and 
public works projects. As a result of the Preble's mouse's listing as 
an endangered species, many restoration projects were delayed as 
Colorado sought a waiver.
  Moreover, the scientific evidence simply does not justify these 
delays or the millions of taxpayer dollars that go toward protecting a 
rodent that is actually part of a larger group that roams throughout 
half of the North American Continent.
  Several scientific studies have concluded that the Preble's mouse 
does not warrant protection because it isn't a subspecies at all and is 
actually related to one of the largest and most widespread genetic 
lineages of North American jumping mice. Even the scientist that 
originally classified this mouse as a subspecies has since recanted his 
work.
  Moreover, the Preble's mouse has a low conservation priority score, 
meaning that the hundreds of millions of dollars already spent on 
protection efforts could have been better spent on other, more fragile 
species.
  My amendment would correct the injustice that has been caused by the 
inaccurate listing of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse and would 
refocus the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's efforts on species that 
have been thoroughly scientifically vetted and that should be managed 
by the Endangered Species Act.
  This amendment is supported by Citizens Against Government Waste and 
has previously passed the House of Representatives on three separate 
occasions, all by bipartisan votes. So I encourage my colleagues to, 
once again, support this commonsense amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First, I would like to make the case that this is a rider, that this 
is authorizing on an appropriations amendment, and that the author of 
the amendment is in the majority.
  The majority could have a hearing in the authorizing committee. It 
could come to the floor. It could pass on the floor. The Senate could 
move it. And it appears to me that President Trump is in a position to 
sign this into law, should he choose to do so.
  So there is another alternative vehicle for moving the gentleman's 
amendment forward, and that is to do it legislatively and not put it on 
an appropriations bill. The Senate has chosen to put no riders on their 
appropriations bill.
  But the amendment is before us. As pointed out, it would prohibit the 
Fish and Wildlife Service from implementing or enforcing the threatened 
species listing of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse under the 
Endangered Species Act, and it would restrict the Service from offering 
any of the critical protections to preserve the species.
  Now, once a species is listed under the Endangered Species Act, it is 
the role of Fish and Wildlife, and it is primarily permissive, to help 
parties comply with the act as they carry out their activities.
  I also want to make sure the Record is clear that Fish and Wildlife 
Service reviewed the information claiming an alleged taxonomic error in 
the listing of the species and found no evidence that the Preble's 
meadow jumping mouse is not a valid subspecies.
  But under this amendment, the Service would not be able to continue 
to offer to recover this species, though the Endangered Species Act 
prohibitions would still apply. The Service

[[Page H6508]]

would not be able to work with agencies. The Service would not be able 
to work with developers. The Service would not be able to work with 
landowners and others to provide ESA compliance.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service would be barred from issuing permits or 
exemptions. This means that landowners, industry, and other parties who 
might need to take the Preble's meadow jumping mouse incidental to 
their otherwise lawful activities, such as urban development, would 
become vulnerable to third-party lawsuits.
  Additionally, this amendment would also limit the Service from 
undertaking the required status reviews of the subspecies or from any 
initial rulemaking to downlist or to delist the species, as 
appropriate.
  Mr. Chair, I think it is pretty obvious that this amendment should go 
through a different way of coming to the floor, and that is through the 
authorizing committee.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the House has spoken on this. 
In last year's conference report, we directed Fish and Wildlife Service 
to make this species among its highest priorities for consultation and 
permit processing. Obviously, the agency has not moved fast enough, and 
they need to get hopping.
  So I am sure this amendment will squeak by with all of our support. I 
urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I will just conclude by saying, if the Fish and Wildlife Service 
worked together with developers, local communities, and other groups, 
that would be one thing. But when they come in with a hammer and say, 
you have to do it this way, that is really not working together. That 
has, unfortunately, been the experience of many parties on the front 
range of Colorado.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge that, once again, we support this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The Service has a statutory requirement to implement the Endangered 
Species Act. Defunding the agency's ability to fulfill its legal 
requirements makes it more vulnerable to lawsuits, and I know that that 
is something that we are all trying to avoid here. When you have 
lawsuits, it is an unnecessary cost for the taxpayers.
  Now, the gentleman's amendment would undermine the Service's ability 
to work collaboratively with States, local governments, communities, 
and landowners, to conserve this imperiled species. The amendment would 
create uncertainty for landowners and also make them vulnerable to 
lawsuits.
  So we should not pass this amendment. We should be supporting the 
Fish and Wildlife Service efforts and not blocking the agency from 
doing its job.
  Mr. Chair, my commitment to the chairman and to my walking partner in 
the tunnels as we all come over for votes is to work with them to make 
the Fish and Wildlife Service more responsible to the gentleman's 
concerns. But at this time, I have to oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 49 Offered by Mr. Lamborn

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 49 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:


                       limitation on use of funds

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement or enforce the threatened species or 
     endangered species listing of any plant or wildlife that has 
     not undergone a review as required by section 4(c)(2) of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(2)).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chair, my amendment is straightforward. It simply ensures that 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is following current law, 
specifically section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, by 
conducting their review of all threatened and endangered plants and 
wildlife at least once every 5 years.
  Time after time, the Federal Government refuses to follow the will of 
Congress when it enacted the Endangered Species Act. The government 
designates land as ``critical habitat'' despite not meeting the ESA 
definition, and the government consistently refuses to remove plants 
and animals from threatened or endangered status even when those 
species are flourishing and no longer in need of ESA protections.
  But you may ask yourself: How does the government know when a species 
should be removed from the endangered or threatened list? How does the 
government know if a species is recovering? The answer could be found 
in the ESA, and it is a requirement that the Federal Government review 
all plants or species that are currently listed as endangered or 
threatened every 5 years.
  Under the Endangered Species Act, the purpose of a 5-year review is 
to ensure that threatened and endangered species have the appropriate 
level of protection. And because the ESA grants extensive protection to 
a species, including harsh penalties for landowners and other citizens, 
it makes sense to regularly verify if a plant or animal is being 
properly classified or if it should be delisted.
  Despite this commonsense requirement, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service acknowledged earlier this year that it has neglected its 
responsibility to conduct the required reviews for nearly 1,000 
species.
  By enforcing the 5-year review, my amendment will ensure that the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is using the best available scientific 
information in implementing its responsibilities under the ESA, 
including incorporating new information through public comment and 
assessing ongoing conservation efforts.
  This amendment is supported by Citizens Against Government Waste, the 
National Mining Association, and the American Farm Bureau, and it has 
previously passed the House of Representatives on three separate 
occasions, all by bipartisan votes.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in ensuring that the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service follows the law, the letter of the law, in the 
Endangered Species Act and that we do not allow the agency to spend 
money that would violate current law.
  Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to once again support my amendment, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, the Service attempts to comply with the 
statutory mandate to review the status of listed species every 5 years 
to determine whether their classification as threatened or endangered 
is still appropriate. However, the Service has a backlog of such 
reviews due to funding limitations, such as the 42 percent listing 
`reduction contained in this bill.
  In this bill, the work that the Service would need to do to comply 
with what you want in this bill alone is cut $8 million, so that just 
puts them farther behind.

[[Page H6509]]

  In recent years, the Service has only been able to complete 100 to 
120 reviews per year, which is less than half of what is needed to keep 
up with the requirement to review all the species every 5 years. So 
that falls on Congress for us not giving them the funds that they need 
to do the job effectively and efficiently as you are requesting, and 
the way to fix that is to give them the proper funding.
  But as the gentleman might be aware, the chairman was given level 
funding this year. He did the very best that he could with what he had 
to balance things out in the interests of the requests he had from 
Members of the House, but this particular $8 million cut just makes 
your problem even worse.
  This amendment would not remove species, without reviews, from the 
list of the species protected by the ESA. So the ESA prohibition 
against take would still remain, as would the ability of citizens to 
sue to force compliance.
  If funding cannot be used to enforce the ESA for species with late 
reviews, that will leave the species unprotected.
  While the proposed language would prohibit the Service from working 
with agencies, developers, landowners, and others to provide ESA 
compliance through section 7 consultations or section 10 permits for 
Federal or private projects that could potentially affect the species, 
it would not affect the ability of third parties to sue those agencies 
or landowners and potentially enjoin their projects due to the lack of 
ESA compliance.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said about the last amendment, we don't need 
another rider or extraneous provision in this bill. It is already 
overburdened with many, many riders.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to take this language to the 
appropriate committees of jurisdiction and work through and see if we 
can make positive changes and create win-wins.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. And I would 
urge my colleagues, if they want the backlog to change, to help the 
chairman and me get more money into the allocation of this bill so the 
chairman and I can work to achieve those goals together.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Two quick responses, then I am going to yield some time.
  When it comes to funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service, they are 
just going to have to basically do what every other private or 
governmental entity, family, and individual has to do, which is 
prioritize their spending. They have to live within their means. We all 
have to live within our means. They have to have the priorities where 
they can do the job with the money that they are given.

  Number two, I think that maybe my colleague would agree with me that 
outside environmental groups are largely to blame for bringing massive 
lawsuits that tie up a lot of the resources of the Fish and Wildlife 
Service so they can't be doing their business of protecting the species 
that they are already supposed to be caring for. So I think they really 
get a lot of the blame here as well.
  Mr. Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I support this amendment. The root of the frustration with 
the Endangered Species Act is that species rarely get delisted, and 
people who are directly affected by a listing are condemned to a life 
of an additional Federal rule indefinitely.
  Congress tried to prevent this by requiring the Fish and Wildlife 
Service to review the status of every listed species every 5 years and 
to down-list or delist species accordingly.
  Today, the Service has a backlog of 892 species without a current 5-
year review.
  Without these 5-year reviews, species could be recovered and we 
wouldn't even know it. I find this simply unacceptable.
  Unless the Service focuses its personnel on inherently Federal 
responsibilities under the ESA and non-Federal partners take the lead 
on actual recovery, we will never break the contentious and litigious 
cycle that we have now.
  And, by the way, we have actually increased the ESA recovery budget 
in this bill for 5-year reviews. So let's get ESA working again.
  Mr. Chair, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
  Mr. Chair, I would urge my colleagues to once again support this 
commonsense amendment, which we have done in the past three different 
times on a bipartisan basis.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 50 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 50 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to take any of 
     the actions described as a ``backstop'' in the December 29, 
     2009, letter from EPA's Regional Administrator to the States 
     in the Watershed and the District of Columbia in response to 
     the development or implementation of a State's watershed 
     implementation and referred to in enclosure B of such letter.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise to urge support for my amendment, which 
would reaffirm and preserve the rights of the States to write their own 
water quality plans.
  My amendment simply prohibits the EPA from using its Chesapeake Bay 
Total Maximum Daily Load and the so-called watershed implementation 
plans to hijack States' water quality strategies.
  Over the last several years, the EPA has implemented a Total Maximum 
Daily Load blueprint for the six States in the Chesapeake Bay 
watershed, which strictly limits the amount of nutrients that can enter 
the Chesapeake Bay. Through its implementation, the EPA has basically 
given every State in the watershed an ultimatum: either the State does 
exactly what the EPA says or it faces the threat of an EPA takeover of 
its water quality programs.
  Congress intended that the implementation of the Clean Water Act be a 
collaborative approach, through which the States and the Federal 
Government work together. This process was not meant to be subject to 
the whims of politics and bureaucrats in Washington. Therefore, my 
amendment instructs the EPA to respect the important role States play 
in implementing the Clean Water Act.
  I want to make it perfectly clear that this amendment would not stop 
the EPA from working with the States to restore the Chesapeake Bay, nor 
would it undermine the cleanup efforts already underway. My language 
only removes the ability of the EPA to take over a State's plan or to 
take retaliatory actions against the State if it does not meet EPA-
mandated goals. Again, it ensures States' rights remain intact and not 
usurped by the EPA.
  It is important to point out that the correlation between the EPA's 
outrageous waters of the United States rule and the Bay TMDL, at the 
heart of both issues is the EPA's desire to control conservation and 
water quality improvement efforts throughout the country and to punish 
all those who dare to oppose them.
  The bay is a national treasure, and I want to see it restored, but we 
know that in order to achieve this goal, the

[[Page H6510]]

States and the EPA must work together. The EPA cannot be allowed to 
railroad the States and micromanage the process.
  This amendment has passed the House with bipartisan support several 
times, and I urge my colleagues to once again vote to ask the EPA to 
respect the important role States play in implementing the Clean Water 
Act and prevent another Federal power grab by the administration.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, this amendment would allow those who pollute 
the Chesapeake Bay to ignore the Environmental Protection Agency's 
water quality standards.
  Restoring the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed continues to be a 
priority, and a priority for this committee to fund it. The EPA 
established the mandatory water quality standards and Congress has 
appropriated over $1 billion for the Chesapeake Bay Program to help 
States, localities, and businesses meet those needs. This amendment 
would jeopardize that funding and have devastating effects on the 
health of the bay.
  How long will the States and localities be able to meet their 
obligations that they agreed to in 2014 in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 
Agreement if the Federal Government's financial assistance goes away?
  This is a partnership. We should keep the partnership moving forward.
  Furthermore, if this amendment were to become law, it would block the 
EPA's ability to enforce the court-ordered settlement requiring the 
farm community and agribusinesses to meet watershed specific pollution 
limits. It would not, however, relieve the farms and agribusinesses 
from the requirements in the settlement.
  The State and local governments want to move forward. They want to 
keep the partnership moving. But the Farm Bureau and, in fact, some of 
the industrial operators they represent don't think that they should be 
responsible for controlling the pollution that they dump into our 
rivers and streams across the country.
  The courts have sided with the EPA on this matter, and the Farm 
Bureau continues their pursuit to stop mandatory cleanups through 
judicial appeals and through this amendment.
  There are enough special interest provisions for big business in this 
bill already. We don't need any more.
  Mr. Chair, I urge defeat of this amendment, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits the use of funds to 
take retaliatory actions against individual States. Importantly, this 
amendment would not prevent the EPA from working with States to restore 
the bay.
  In 1985, the States in the Chesapeake Bay region recognized the need 
to address pollutants in the bay and, through their own initiative, 
came together to conduct cleanup efforts. These State-driven efforts 
were largely successful. As a matter of fact, water quality improved 
almost 50 percent from 1985 to 2010.
  However, in 2010, the EPA seized the States' authority to determine 
their own continued compliance and threatened to dictate Federal 
requirements if the States were unable to comply. This 2010 power grab, 
known as the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, directly contradicts the intent of 
the Clean Water Act.
  The Clean Water Act clearly acknowledges State authority in water 
quality and requires cooperation rather than coercion between the 
States and the Federal Government.
  These coercive methods have been tried and imposed and have failed. 
Actually, water quality has not improved since the federalization of 
the bay cleanup efforts.
  It is simply imperative that we return the constitutional rights of 
the States to make their own water quality improvement decisions and 
restore the State control that has been shown to actually improve water 
quality. The future of the Chesapeake Bay depends on it.

                              {time}  1730

  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 30 seconds to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the chairman of the 
committee.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I am happy to rise in support of the 
gentleman's amendment. This is another example of EPA overreach. It is 
my hope that my colleagues from Virginia and Pennsylvania can continue 
to work with the administration to find common ground on approaches 
that will improve water quality in a more flexible manner. I certainly 
support this amendment and I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me just say, this 
amendment does not in any way take any resources away from any of the 
six States in the Chesapeake Bay region to improve water quality. What 
it does take away is the ability of the EPA to dictate to those States 
one way, their way, to do it.
  The Clean Water Act was written with it in mind that the Federal 
Government would set the standards and the States would figure out how 
to meet those standards. And that flexibility has been taken away 
starting in the Obama administration, and it is time for this Congress 
to stop them from doing that so that we can have the kind of 
collaborative effort just described by the subcommittee chairman, Mr. 
Calvert, and get back to doing things the right way.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, for more than 35 years, there has been a 
regional partnership created through the Chesapeake Bay Program, and it 
sought to restore and protect the Nation's largest and most productive 
estuaries. That is a partnership with the Federal Government which 
includes funding that is working together to achieve those common 
goals.
  Now, I have nothing before me saying that the State of Virginia, or 
any of the regional partners, want to withdraw from this moving forward 
to continue to clean up this estuary. This amendment would undermine 
decades of work and decades of Federal dollars that the Federal 
Government has put in in partnership, and it would have devastating 
effects to the health of the bay and the economy it supports.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.


                AMENDMENT NO. 51 OFFERED BY MR. GALLEGO

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 51 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to 
     issue a grazing permit or lease in contravention of section 
     4110.1 or 4130.1-1(b) of title 43, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, grazing on public lands is a privilege--
not a right--and ranchers who use these

[[Page H6511]]

lands should abide by the law and pay their fair share.
  On average, Federal rates for grazing are more than 90 percent lower 
than what the private sector charges. In fact, these rates are so low 
that the government actually loses money administering the grazing 
program. My amendment would simply reaffirm that grazing permits or 
leases should not be issued to anyone who refuses to comply with BLM 
regulations, including the payment of fees.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a narrow amendment, but it speaks to a broader 
principle. We can't claim to support the rule of law and then look the 
other way when ranchers like Cliven Bundy ignore their obligations.
  Bundy thumbed his nose at the executive and judicial branches of our 
government, running up over $1 million in unpaid fees. He then put the 
lives of local and Federal officials in danger during a standoff at his 
Nevada ranch.
  Later, when two Oregon ranchers named Dwight and Steven Hammond, who 
also have a history of disregarding grazing regulations, were sent to 
Federal prison for fires they potentially set near Federal lands, 
members of the Bundy family led an armed occupation of the national 
wildlife refuge.
  Mr. Chairman, President Trump recently pardoned the Hammonds, 
validating these violent tactics and insulting the courageous law 
enforcement officers who risked their lives during the confrontation in 
Oregon. With these pardons, Trump has effectively given his blessing to 
groups who intimidated, threatened, and occupied local communities. He 
has legitimized Bundy's extreme right-wing movements.
  Make no mistake, Donald Trump is sending a clear message to militant 
and antigovernment organizations: You can break the law, threaten 
Federal employees, and endanger public safety with complete impunity. 
That is unacceptable.
  Mr. Chairman, freeloading on Federal land is unlawful and unfair. 
Let's pass my amendment and reaffirm that the ranchers need to play by 
the rules just like the rest of us.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, this amendment previously failed by recorded 
vote in July of 2016. The amendment taxed ranchers and attempts to 
relitigate the Bundy matter.
  DOJ was found to have withheld evidence and to have violated these 
ranchers' rights. There is no reason to relitigate this matter at this 
juncture. The regulations are already in place.
  This is an unnecessary political amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chair, let's face it: Ranchers who refuse to pay 
what they owe the Federal Government are freeloaders, pure and simple. 
If you don't pay your taxes, you go to jail. If you don't pay your 
mortgage, you get your house taken away. Ranchers are not more special 
than any other Americans. They are freeloaders, and they should pay for 
their freeloading. Congress should not stand for it. Let's pass my 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman brings up exactly the point I 
am trying to make. We are trying to relitigate a previously settled 
issue. It was actually found that these ranchers' rights were violated 
by the Department of Justice.
  We started looking--the Hammonds were brought up. When we were 
actually looking at this case where they actually tried to look at the 
fire danger on their land, and it got beyond their lands and on to 
public land, they were fined exclusively and hardlined.
  Where is the same type of justice given to the Forest Service or the 
BLM when their prescribed burn fires go out of hand and take private 
holdings? It is not the same. This isn't about freeloading. This is 
about a case where we need to look at how we take care of our public 
lands.
  Mr. Chair, I ask everybody to vote against this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mr. Byrne

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 52 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to repeal section 105(a)(2) or section 105(b) of the 
     Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (43 U.S.C. 1331 
     note).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer a straightforward 
amendment to prohibit any effort to redirect funds allocated under the 
Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, which is commonly known as GOMESA.
  For those who don't know, GOMESA calls for a Federal revenue sharing 
agreement between the Federal Government and four Gulf States: Texas, 
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. The program is designed to split 
up revenue from selected oil and gas lease sales in the Outer 
Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico.
  The neat thing about GOMESA is it ensures appropriate funding for the 
coastal areas that provide the workforce, assume the environmental 
risk, build much of the infrastructure, and support the offshore oil 
and gas industry. It only makes sense that the coastal areas should 
receive an adequate share of the revenue.
  Previously, there have been administrative efforts to direct the 
money away from the Gulf States, and, instead, devote the resources to 
national projects. While I appreciate the Trump administration not 
including any such proposal in this year's budget, I still believe it 
is important for Congress to send a clear, bipartisan message that we 
do not support moving GOMESA funds away from the Gulf Coast.
  In fact, just this year, the Department of the Interior disbursed 
almost $188 million to the four Gulf oil and gas producing States. 
Alabama received $21 million this year, and the two coastal counties in 
Alabama received an additional combined amount of $5 million.
  I have seen these GOMESA funds put to good use back in my home State 
of Alabama, whether it was for environmental rehabilitation protection 
projects or programs that boost the coastal tourism economy. GOMESA is 
working by supporting and promoting our Gulf Coast communities. If you 
talk to our local mayors and county leaders, they will tell you how 
critically important GOMESA funding is for their region.
  It would be detrimental to go against congressional intent and 
redirect these funds away from our respective coastal communities. By 
including this amendment, we can make clear that Congress does not 
support reallocating these resources and show our strong support for 
the Gulf Coast.
  Mr. Chair, I ask for an ``aye'' vote on this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Burgess

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 53 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to hire or pay 
     the

[[Page H6512]]

     salary of any officer or employee of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency under subsection (f) or (g) of section 207 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 209) who is not 
     already receiving pay under either such subsection on the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment on an issue I have 
worked on for several years on the Committee on Energy and Commerce as 
the authorizing committee.
  In 2006, the Committee on Appropriations, without an authorization 
from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, included a provision in the 
annual Department of the Interior EPA Appropriations bill to allow the 
Environmental Protection Agency to begin using a special paid program 
that was explicitly and exclusively authorized for use by the Public 
Health Service Administration under the Department of Health and Human 
Services.
  The special pay mechanism allows a government employee to leave the 
normal GS pay scale and receive nearly uncapped compensation. This 
provision was intended to be used only in unique circumstances for 
leaders in the healthcare industry who would never leave the private 
sector to work for the Federal Government except for those special, 
more competitive salaries.
  Under current law, this justification can never be used at the 
Environmental Protection Agency. Indeed, some of the employees that the 
Environmental Protection Agency pays under title 42, the part of the 
U.S. Code that allows for this special pay, were previous government 
workers who were merely moved into the special pay scale because they 
desired more money.
  The Environmental Protection Agency has claimed in the past that 
because the Environmental Protection Agency is a health organization, 
it may use this statute to pay special hires, and the Committee on 
Appropriations has agreed to let them, despite the authorizing 
committee's objection.
  Originally, the Environmental Protection Agency was granted only a 
handful of slots to fill with title 42 hires. That number has now 
increased to over 50. The cost to the taxpayers for these employees is 
tens of millions of dollars.
  This amendment would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from 
hiring any new employees under title 42, or transferring any current 
employees from the GS scale to title 42. It would not effect current 
employees being paid under this provision. This would give the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, the authorizing committee, the time 
it needs to address whether the EPA truly deserves the special pay 
consideration.
  The Government Accountability Office looked into the Department of 
Health and Human Services' abuse of title 42 several years ago, and 
found problems with the implementation of this program. Within the 
Department of Health and Human Services where, arguably, this could be 
allowed, why would Congress ever allow the Environmental Protection 
Agency to implement the same problematic pay structure?

                              {time}  1745

  In multiple hearings in the Energy and Commerce Committee, both 
former Administrator Lisa Jackson and former Administrator Gina 
McCarthy refused to give specifics regarding the program. A Freedom of 
Information Act request by the EPA union, the American Federation of 
Government Employees, sent to my office showed that title 42 hires at 
EPA are, in fact, sowing dissent among workers, with the union asking 
the Congress to stop this abusive and unfair hiring technique.
  A report by the Environmental Protection Agency's own inspector 
general in 2015 discovered that the EPA did not properly demonstrate a 
need to use the title 42 hiring authority, nor did it provide clear and 
convincing justification for its continued use. This is further proof 
that the Environmental Protection Agency's use of the title 42 hiring 
authority must come to an end.
  I have introduced legislation further clarifying that the Public 
Health Services Act, written for HHS, does not permit the EPA to use 
this language to hire employees under a special pay structure.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, this amendment, like some of the 
other amendments that we have seen, could be handled in the authorizing 
committee, which the gentleman is a member of, if memory serves me 
correctly.
  The gentleman is in the majority. Call up, have a hearing, pass 
legislation, and then do it in a way that doesn't add more burdensome 
amendments and riders to this bill. The Senate is also controlled by 
the same party in the majority, and the President is of that party. So 
I would encourage the gentleman to go through what I would call regular 
order.
  This amendment would prohibit the EPA from hiring scientists using 
its title 42 authority, the flexible hiring mechanism that allows 
agencies to attract and retain staff with outstanding scientific and 
technical skills.
  This authority, as has been pointed out, is used by the EPA, the CDC, 
the NIH, and other agencies that require candidates who have 
specialized degrees in areas such as medicine, science, and 
engineering.
  It is not always easy for the Federal Government to attract high-
level professionals who have invested many years in school and could 
easily make more money in private practice or academia. In fact, we 
have heard that USGS and BLM quite often have problems keeping highly 
educated engineers in place because the private sector comes and offers 
them so much more money.
  So the Federal Government has found it wise to allow these agencies 
to provide some additional funding to retain and recruit these 
employees. We should want to have the best and the brightest working 
for us and the American people--the best doctors, the best scientists, 
and the best engineers. So I am disappointed that the gentleman does 
not believe such highly specialized employees deserve the title 42 
designation.
  With our Nation facing crises like Lyme's disease, PFAS in our 
drinking water, and climate change, we should be investing in our 
scientists. We should be encouraging them to seek employment with the 
Federal Government.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  It is a reasonable amendment. It only affects employees who are new 
hires in title 42 in the Environmental Protection Agency, not in the 
CDC and not in NIH. It is an amendment that would allow the authorizing 
committee an opportunity to catch up with what the Appropriations 
Committee has done without an authorization.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, once again, this amendment could go 
through a different order and not be placed onto an appropriations 
bill.
  This is a shortsighted amendment. I think it deserves to have a fair 
and open vetting with the House concentrated on just what this would 
mean to the EPA. So I don't think we should attack Federal employees 
who sometimes have chosen to not receive as much compensation and 
devote their lives to public service.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 54 will 
not be offered.


                 Amendment No. 55 Offered by Mr. Emmer

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 55 
printed in House Report 115-830.

[[Page H6513]]

  

  Mr. EMMER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to withdraw National Forest System lands within the 
     Rainy River Watershed on the Superior National Forest from 
     disposition under United States mineral and geothermal 
     leasing laws.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. EMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment, which I am pleased to say 
that I intend to withdraw, because after months of hard work in this 
Chamber and with the administration, it is no longer necessary.
  Minnesota is the proud home to the Iron Range, which boasts an 
abundance of natural resources and critical minerals. When it comes to 
protecting the environment while developing our economic assets, nobody 
does it better than Minnesota.
  Despite this history, on its very last day in office, the Obama 
administration proposed to withdraw more than 240,000 acres of land in 
our State from mineral exploration and development. This last-minute 
action was an assault on our way of life, threatening thousands of jobs 
and billions of dollars in State revenue and school trust funding. It 
handicaps our national security by increasing our reliance on foreign 
sources of minerals.
  That is why I offered this amendment to stop this foolish action.
  This amendment is identical to one that was unanimously adopted by 
this Chamber last year and echoes the good news delivered by the 
President to thousands of Minnesotans on June 20 when he announced his 
intent to rescind this arbitrary withdrawal, which is now in process.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that the amendment is going to be 
withdrawn, but let me explain what this language would have done. To 
the best of my knowledge, the leases haven't been permanently withdrawn 
yet.
  This language would have prevented the Forest Service and the 
Interior Department from acting to protect our Nation's most visited 
wilderness area. The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness is located 
in northern Minnesota, and it is one of the last truly undisturbed wild 
places in America.
  It is a national treasure, and it is under threat from sulfide-ore 
copper mining. The proposed mine is next to the wilderness. There is no 
buffer, and there is no barrier here. It is literally in the same 
water.
  Sulfide-ore mining is the most toxic industry in America. It pollutes 
waterways with acid drainage that contains arsenic, mercury, and lead.
  The Forest Service recognized how damaging this type of mining could 
be to the Boundary Waters, so they proposed a 20-year halt to Federal 
mine leases in the watershed. They were urged to study this withdrawal 
by our Governor from Minnesota, Tribal Governments, and people from all 
across America who were worried that sulfide mining could destroy the 
surrounding waters and lands.
  They have a right to be worried. All these mines have failed. In 
2014, a sulfide-ore mine in British Columbia failed, dumping billions 
of liters of toxic sludge, causing permanent environmental damage.
  So the Forest Service wisely decided to conduct a science-based 
assessment to see if mineral withdrawal would make sense for the water-
intensive ecosystem of our Boundary Waters.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, despite what you might hear about what the 
gentleman said, the proposed mining withdrawal is not some overreach or 
some past or current administration being out of line. In 1976, 
Congress established this exact review process under the Federal Land 
Policy and Management Act. Congress intentionally provided a way to 
protect our country's natural treasures and vulnerable places.
  If the gentleman's amendment would have come to the floor for a vote 
and would have passed again, it would have stopped that review process. 
It would make the withdrawal study meaningless, because it dictates the 
outcome.
  If this amendment had been on the floor and it would pass, the 
withdrawal of the Boundary Waters from sulfide-ore mining would have 
been off the table no matter what the study would have said is best for 
the wilderness.
  In every conversation I have had, and I have had many, with Secretary 
Zinke and Secretary Perdue, they have told me the same thing: The study 
should be completed.
  So I hope my colleagues and the President would reject having these 
leases go through without having a study.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Nolan), who is my colleague from Minnesota and coauthor 
of this amendment.
  Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Emmer for yielding.
  The lady, for whom I have enormous respect, has failed to mention the 
fact that this or any other project anywhere in the country, let alone 
the State of Minnesota, would be, nevertheless, subject to endless 
reviews by the Environmental Protection Agency, some of which take up 
to 10 and 12 years. So it is not as though we are approving a mining 
project here. It is going to have to undergo rigorous review.
  As my colleagues from Minnesota know, I was an original sponsor of 
the 1978 Boundary Waters Wilderness legislation. I am very proud of 
that fact.
  I want everybody to know here that, at the time, we made a solid 
commitment to preserve and to protect some 1.1 million acres out of the 
Superior National Forest for the BWCA, to protect it from all manmade 
harm and damage to the environment. But we also made a commitment to 
reserve the remainder of the Superior National Forest for mixed-use 
purposes and specifically cited recreation an forestry.

  The U.S. Forest Service described mining as a desirable-use purpose. 
In fact, that was the forestry service at that time.
  Our word is our bond in this business. This amendment will uphold 
that hard-fought compromise. The simple truth is that we have been 
mining on the Iron Range for 130 years, yet we have the cleanest water 
in the State of Minnesota and perhaps the country. We are going to do 
everything we can to make sure that we keep it that way.
  Mr. EMMER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first start off by saying that I have great 
respect for my colleagues, both Representative Emmer and Representative 
Nolan, and the rest of our delegation, Representative McCollum 
included.
  This has been an ongoing debate.
  I just want to make sure folks understand, know, and can appreciate--
and I know the gentleman is going to withdraw the amendment--that 
hundreds of thousands of people have been weighing in on this ongoing 
public process, and their comments should not be ignored. That is the 
bottom line. Nor should we be ignoring a science-based assessment of 
the best management practices that are important for one of Minnesota's 
and the country's national treasures.
  We should be open to new types of mining in Minnesota, but only when 
those necessary environmental reviews are met.
  I refer to the Boundary Waters as Minnesota's Yellowstone. There is a 
reason for that. It has a national perspective with hundreds of 
thousands of

[[Page H6514]]

Americans visiting it each and every year, whether it is canoeing or 
fishing. That is where some of my best memories in my life have taken 
place.
  So I want to make sure--we owe it to ourselves and future 
generations--that we rely on science before undertaking any activity 
that would disrupt this fragile ecosystem.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time, 
and I want to thank my colleagues for their ongoing discussion on this 
issue.
  Mr. Chair, once again my colleagues, Representatives Emmer and Nolan, 
are offering this amendment. And while I appreciate my friendship with 
my Minnesota colleagues, I once again oppose this amendment and rise in 
opposition.
  Minnesota has a rich history of taconite mining that dates back 
generations. However, this amendment is not about taconite mining, it's 
about copper-nickel mining, which has never been done before in 
Minnesota and is being proposed within the watershed of the Boundary 
Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, which is one of America's most visited 
wilderness areas.
  An environmental review is currently underway to study the viability 
of mining this close to the Boundary Water Canoe Area and this 
amendment would defund that review less than a year before its 
scheduled completion in 2019.
  Hundreds of thousands of people, on both sides of the issue, have 
weighed in on this ongoing public process. Their comments should not be 
ignored. Nor should we be ignoring the science-based assessment of best 
management practices for one of Minnesota's national treasures.
  We should be open to new types of mining in Minnesota, but only when 
the necessary environmental reviews are met.
  The Boundary Waters Canoe Area is Minnesota's Yellowstone. Hundreds 
of thousands of Americans visit it on fishing and canoe trips annually. 
Some of the best memories of my life have taken place in the Boundary 
Waters.
  We owe it to ourselves and future generations to rely on science 
before undertaking any activity that could potentially disrupt this 
fragile ecosystem. I oppose defunding the ongoing environmental review 
and ask others to vote against the amendment.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert), who is the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee's Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, now you know how it feels about California 
water. I got the drift of this thing.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's interest on this 
issue and appreciate the variety of opinions about it. I thank the 
gentleman, as well as the gentlewoman from Minnesota, who is the 
subcommittee's ranking member, for her willingness to work with the 
committee. As we work together to try to move forward with this bill, I 
hope a compromise will be found.
  Mr. EMMER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. EMMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his work and 
continued support on this issue.
  To make a few closing points, nothing about this amendment would 
allow for mining in the Boundary Waters, period.

                              {time}  1800

  In fact, to demonstrate the disconnect and level of misinformation on 
this issue, my colleagues who stand in opposition to this amendment 
worked to have report language accompany this bill which incorrectly 
calls attention to a ``proposal'' to withdraw lands within the Boundary 
Waters Canoe Area, despite the fact there is no such proposal and it 
remains unlawful to mine within the Boundary Waters.
  Nothing about this amendment eliminates any existing environmental 
protections. This amendment reinforces the commonsense reality that 
economic growth and environmental protection do not have to be mutually 
exclusive.
  I am pleased to have the support of the House on this very important 
issue during this 115th Congress. I am pleased to have the pledged 
support and continued commitment from the administration to end this 
withdrawal. I am pleased that we will soon be able to get Washington 
out of the lives of thousands of hardworking Minnesotans.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, I withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I reserved my time. The gentleman has 
withdrawn the amendment. Even though the amendment has been withdrawn, 
I don't have the right to close or I would have used my time.
  Could the Parliamentarian instruct me as to if my time is actually 
gone.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman's time has elapsed because the 
amendment was withdrawn.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, we do have a tradition of mining in 
Minnesota--taconite mining is the new mining--and I just want to 
reiterate the fact that these leases are for mining and the company 
that is looking to mine is sulfide-ore mining.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I want to close by sharing some words from the 
founding members of Kids for the Boundary Waters. I have their 
handwritten notes. To have handwritten notes from America's young 
adults these days is pretty special.
  From Callie: ``This unique place shaped my life. The Boundary Waters 
helped me to realize my potential.''
  From Henry: ``I have watched year after year as families like my own 
have grown together in this wilderness.''
  From Julia: ``The pristine, untainted waters of the Boundary Waters 
are essential to the quality and uniqueness of the journeys of 
visitors.''
  From Tommaso: ``I am more committed than ever to help preserve and 
protect this beautiful and unique ecosystem for future generations.''
  From Elsa: ``Once the watershed faces sulfide-ore copper mining, it 
will never be the same.''
  From Joseph, who started this organization during his fight with 
leukemia: ``What cancer has taught me for sure is that sometimes life 
only gives you one chance to get things right, and this is our one 
chance to protect the Boundary Waters.''
  I urge my colleagues and others to join me in standing with these 
young, inspiring people and to oppose the lease renewal.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                Amendment No. 56 Offered by Mr. Grothman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 56 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement or enforce the rule entitled ``National 
     Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone'' published by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency in the Federal Register on 
     October 26, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 65292).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to deal 
with the new rule entitled, ``National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
for Ozone,'' which affects several Wisconsin counties that I represent 
along Lake Michigan.
  Since the original CLEAR Act came into effect, the Environmental 
Protection Agency has had the authority to regulate air emissions from 
stationary and mobile sources. They have--and this is a good thing--
over time, progressively come up with new rules, making the standards 
more and more stringent for the counties along Lake Michigan.
  If you are ruled a nonattainment, it is a burden. It is a burden on 
industry that has to spend substantial amounts of additional money 
dealing with stricter and stricter standards, putting them at a 
competitive disadvantage compared to other parts of the country and 
other parts of the world. It is also

[[Page H6515]]

a difficult thing for individual motorists who find their cars have to 
be repaired. It is very expensive.
  Some of it is easy for people who have a high salary to deal with. 
Maybe they don't have an older car. But I have always felt that some of 
this disproportionately affects the people who are just struggling to 
get a goal in life.
  Therefore, when the EPA comes up with new standards, it is not 
without effect. They need to come up with new standards they proposed a 
couple of years ago.
  The purpose of the amendment is to prevent them from spending money 
promulgating these new standards so that our industries may have a 
predictable situation and not be at a competitive disadvantage.
  I should point out that, insofar as the counties along Lake Michigan 
are ruled a nonattainment, it may be through no fault of their own. In 
part, for historical reasons, they have monitored the ozone by placing 
the monitors real near Lake Michigan, where there are artificially high 
amounts of ozone.
  Secondly, we have a situation where, insofar as there are pollutants 
in the area, almost all of them come from south of Wisconsin, out of 
Chicago or areas further south. As a practical matter, it can be almost 
impossible, or even impossible, for these Wisconsin counties to deal 
with these problems.
  I have been working with the Environmental Protection Agency on this 
issue. After introducing the amendment, I have continued to work with 
the Environmental Protection Agency.
  While I would like to deal with this problem statutorily, I realize 
it would be probably better for all concerned if the Environmental 
Protection Agency, as well as the business community in Wisconsin, and 
I could reach a conclusion.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, I withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Johnson of Louisiana). The amendment is 
withdrawn.


                Amendment No. 57 Offered by Mr. Connolly

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 67 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to propose or issue any modification to any 
     regulation established in the final rule of the Administrator 
     of the Environmental Protection Agency entitled ``Disposal of 
     Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities'' (80 Fed. 
     Reg. 21301 (April 17, 2015)).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, it is in the spirit of bipartisan, 
commonsense, and modest safeguards that I sought to offer this 
amendment that would protect the 2015 Federal coal ash rule.
  Sadly, late last night, Acting EPA Administrator Wheeler helped 
cement the toxic legacy of former Administrator Pruitt's reign over the 
EPA by rolling back Federal coal ash standards, making this amendment 
moot.
  I remind my colleagues that the Obama-era Federal coal ash rule was 
not rushed nor was it onerous. In fact, some think it didn't go far 
enough. After years of debate, input from community and industry 
stakeholders, and nearly half a million public comments, the Obama 
administration finalized stringent but pragmatic Federal coal ash 
regulations to deal with post-closure requirements, groundwater 
monitoring, and public reporting.
  The Pruitt proposal, which was announced only 5 months ago, included 
very few hearings, very little outreach to the public, and last night 
was finalized. That is warp speed, even for the Trump administration's 
swamp-driven EPA antiregulation movement. So, no, the 2015 rule was not 
rushed; the Pruitt rule most certainly was.
  I also remind my colleagues of the catastrophic 2008 Kingston, 
Tennessee, coal ash spill and why the Federal Government got in this 
business to begin with. The Kingston spill was a devastating event. The 
breach released 5 million cubic yards of coal ash, covering 300 acres 
in toxic sludge, damaging and destroying homes and property, resulting 
in $1.2 billion in cleanup costs, mostly borne by the public.
  The lasting health consequences of that spill, some of which are 
still unknown, are even worse. Residents still suffer from respiratory 
illnesses and other side effects. Arsenic levels where the coal ash 
runoff was disposed of were measured at 100 times, Mr. Chairman, higher 
than the amount allowed under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The EPA has 
already said such exposure significantly increases risk of cancers.
  Earlier this year, lawyers filed suit in Federal court alleging that 
more than 180 members of this Superfund cleanup now face severe health 
effects, and 30 individuals have died from the cleanup of this toxic 
waste.
  These coal ash spills continue to occur across the country, Mr. 
Chairman, including in my home State of Virginia, where a neighboring 
State, North Carolina, had a coal ash pond that spilled more than 
39,000 tons of toxic ash and 24 million gallons of wastewater into the 
Dan River.
  Though much of the public and media attention to this spill was 
focused on North Carolina's regulatory shortcomings, Virginia was 
exposed to the dangers of the coal ash spill. As a result, Virginia's 
Department of Environmental Quality secured a $2.5 million settlement 
against Duke Energy Carolinas, a fraction of the cost of the cleanup.
  What has happened in Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee can 
happen in any one of our communities that have or are near coal ash 
impoundment ponds, which is why we must protect the 2015 Federal coal 
ash rule. Unfortunately, that is not what happened last night.
  What happened last night will weaken groundwater monitoring and 
cleanup requirements without considering the widespread evidence of 
significant groundwater contamination recently revealed by industry's 
own data. Already, under the 2015 rule's reporting requirements, coal 
ash waste sites across the country displayed evidence of contaminating 
groundwater. Under Pruitt's proposal, that data may not even see the 
light of day. We may not know. We are not going to monitor.
  Surely, if there is anything we here in Congress can agree on, it is 
the right of all people to have access to safe drinking water. As a 
result of the 2015 Federal rules, States are working to close legacy 
coal ash impoundments and protect water. Under the new finalized 
agreement that modified that rule last night, that is now in jeopardy. 
Because of that action, we are going to have to address coal ash in a 
different way, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, because of that action, I will be forced to withdraw 
this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, I withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


            Amendment No. 58 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 68 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:


                               limitation

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to require changes to an existing placer mining plan 
     of operations with regard to reclamation activities, 
     including revegetation, or to modify the bond requirements 
     for the mining operation.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  July 18, 2018, on page H6515, the following appeared: The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Alaska. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked 
and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Alaska. Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. 
Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. YOUNG of 
Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


[[Page H6516]]

  

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, Alaska has a long history of 
placer mining operations, beginning in the early 1800s and continuing 
through today. In fact, Alaska is one of the few places left, including 
California, that has placer mining operations.
  Most placer mining operations are small, but it as a robust industry 
in Alaska, providing hundreds of jobs and contributing to the growth of 
rural Alaskan communities.
  The Bureau of Land Management's Fortymile plan, finalized in the last 
days of the previous administration, upended decades of successful 
placer mining land management in the Fortymile Planning Area.
  The Fortymile plan imposed an overly complex regulatory framework on 
small-scale placer mining operations as part of an ongoing effort to 
discourage mining activity in the area.
  The Fortymile miners previously agreed to environmental remediation 
standards, and under the new plan proposed by the BLM, they are 
expected to reclaim land that they have not mined and mitigate in ways 
they did not agree to in their approved operation plans.
  They are expected to remediate land that was impacted by placer 
mining over 100 years ago, which adds to their financial burden and 
makes it economically impractical for miners to continue their 
operations.
  This language has been included in the appropriations report language 
by unanimous consent for the last 2 years. This is a necessary piece of 
legislation and amendment to this bill to make sure the BLM recognizes 
that miners do have obligations, they have met their obligations, and 
the agencies have gone against them.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alaska has been 
enlightening me more about placer mining, and I appreciate learning 
more; but I have some questions that remain unanswered, so that is why 
I have opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

                              {time}  1815

  I understand that between 400 and 600 miles of BLM-managed streams 
have historic or active placer mining impacts, and there is a legacy of 
historic claim with reduction of ecosystem function.
  Now, BLM continues various outreach activities, including public 
meetings and interactions with individual miners, and is working with 
industry to incorporate best management practices and new reclamation 
techniques to accelerate stream recovery. I think that would be a good 
thing.
  Of course, reclamation activities may be necessary, and what they are 
looking to do is to increase the cost to the miners, which the 
gentleman is objecting to, if I understand correctly, in order to get 
these streams and ecosystems back up to function.
  This amendment would prohibit assessing the cost of the reclamation 
areas to placer miners who are profiting from mineral extraction on 
BLM-managed land.
  I personally believe the American taxpayer should not shoulder the 
burden of the restoration costs, that responsible parties should.
  So the gentleman will probably be enlightening me over the next 
couple of months on what he thinks might be able to be worked out so 
that both parties feel that the burden is not over-burdensome, but 
there is adequate reclamation going forward.
  Mr. Chair, at this time I have to oppose the amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the Dean of the House's 
amendment and his dedication to the sound management of natural 
resources on behalf of constituents in his State.
  Obviously, mining, and certainly placer mining, is unique to Alaska. 
Alaska certainly has a unique history when it comes to mineral 
extraction, probably more than any other State in the Union. It is 
certainly a big part of Alaska's economy and the economy of the United 
States. It is a mutually beneficial enterprise.
  This amendment is similar to the ones adopted by voice vote in FY17 
and FY18, so I certainly urge my colleagues to adopt it by a voice vote 
yet again.
  Mr. Chair, I support the amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the comments from the 
chairman, and especially the comments from the gentlewoman who 
understands and has opposition. I would like to remind everybody, 
again, the reclamation was taking place, the mitigation was taking 
place. They changed the rules after they agreed on it.
  This is not a newly mined area. This has been mined before. In fact, 
I just came from there on the Fourth of July. Chicken, Alaska. This is 
where this mine is. Lots of mom-and-pop operations, retired people. 
Chicken, Alaska. You know why they call it ``Chicken''? They couldn't 
spell ``ptarmigan.'' That is why they call that small community that.
  They are trying very hard, but very frankly, the BLM came in with 
this plan. It is not working. In fact, they are spending very large 
amounts of money trying to implement their reclamation concept when it 
doesn't work. And I will challenge anybody to show that these miners 
are not doing their best, but their proposal is trying to put them out 
of business. I just think that is wrong.
  If I thought they were doing some harm, I would definitely not be for 
them. I have been there. I have seen it. I have watched what they are 
trying to do. An agency, I think, has forgotten their role, and they 
don't support mining. BLM is supposed to. And they have made it very 
nearly impossible for, very frankly, a mom-and-pop operation to do so.
  So I hope the gentlewoman can see her way to allowing this amendment 
to this bill.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 59 Offered by Mr. Perry

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 59 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to give formal notification under, or prepare, 
     propose, implement, administer, or enforce any rule or 
     recommendation pursuant to, section 115 of the Clean Air Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 7415).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I want to start by thanking Chairman Calvert 
for this opportunity.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits the EPA from using funds for 
actions pursuant to section 115 of the Clean Air Act. Section 115 of 
the Clean Air Act allows the agency to mandate State emissions levels 
to whatever level the agency deems appropriate if, in collaboration 
with a foreign government, they determine endangerment and if the other 
government has a reciprocal agreement to prevent or control these 
emissions in their own nation.
  Now, this is a backdoor provision that allows the agency to vastly 
expand its regulatory authority and encroach on the constitutional 
rights of the States to regulate their own energy sectors, based on the 
actions of a foreign nation and the whims of the executive branch.
  It is irresponsible to allow unelected bureaucrats at the EPA to 
retain the ability to seize such an expansive authority. If the U.S. 
government wants to pursue such a policy, one that, in my opinion, is 
constitutionally suspect, it should be done through an explicit 
congressional delegation of authority on a case-by-case basis.
  A similar amendment has passed the House during the interior and 
environmental appropriations packages for the

[[Page H6517]]

previous 2 fiscal years, Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to take 
back our Article I authority and support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, it has been pointed out that this amendment 
would block the EPA from regulating air pollution under section 115 of 
the Clean Air Act, which deals with international pollution and allows 
the United States to work with other countries on transboundary 
pollution issues.
  Being a State that borders Canada, we enter into agreements with them 
many times to make sure that both of our countries are working together 
in the best interest of their citizens.
  This gentleman has offered this amendment for a number of years. It 
used to be the amendment to torpedo the climate change agreement, but 
President Trump took care of that, so I am a little unclear as to why 
it is continuing to be offered.
  Section 115 could be a tool in our toolbox for a path to achieve 
reduction targets for greenhouse gases. The gentleman's amendment would 
prohibit both the EPA and the Trump White House from even developing a 
well-considered recommendation as to whether or not to use this 
authority.
  The President might, in some circumstances, want to work with another 
country to address something. This to me is just the latest in a long 
line of attacks on clean air and on the EPA's authority to respond to 
the urgent threat of climate change.
  A vote for this amendment is another vote, in my opinion, for climate 
denial and to block action to curb carbon pollution that is driving our 
dangerous climate change.
  We see the hurricanes getting stronger, the wildfires raging 
stronger, and now we are seeing the glaciers melt.
  Mr. Chair, so I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and 
to leave this tool in the toolbox for the Republican administrator at 
EPA, as well as for the Republican person who is serving in the White 
House. Let's leave them one tool in the toolbox in case they want to 
take it out and use it.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, are we or are we not a sovereign Nation? I 
think that most people would agree that we are, and, as such, we don't 
take issue with the Congress, with the administration doing its job to 
keep our air clean and to make treaties and provisions with other 
nations.
  But what we do take issue with is other nations working with, 
potentially, this administration, any administration, that comes up 
with an agreement not ratified by the American people, not ratified by 
this body or the body on the other side of the Capitol to encroach upon 
the constitutional rights of States to regulate their own environmental 
emissions, as provided.
  So it is not a question of whether we think that the climate isn't 
changing, man has something to do with it, or whether it should be 
regulated or how it should be regulated. It is a question of the 
authority vested in the Constitution, in these bodies, and the ones 
that are not.
  It is not the place of unelected bureaucrats or individuals to make 
an agreement with some other nation, then to impose itself on the 
States individually. That is all we are saying here. It has passed on 
numerous occasions because it is good.
  The President got us out of the Paris climate agreement, but that 
doesn't mean that some other administration in the future might make 
another agreement that, yet again, the American people had no part in; 
neither did this body. So this just ensures that if that is the case, 
we have the protection that this body should provide.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 AMENDMENT NO. 60 OFFERED BY MR. PEARCE

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 60 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:


                       limitation on use of funds

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to treat the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse as an 
     endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
     (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, in the West, water is the key to 
everything. One small family, the Gosses--I met them my first year in 
Congress in 2003--has been fighting a 30-year, protracted battle with 
the Forest Service over the water and access to the water.
  They have been to two different courts, and the courts said, yes, the 
water is theirs. The Forest Service responded to the first court by 
fencing the water in. They said the 23 acres around it was their 
acreage and they couldn't walk their cows to get to the water.
  The Gosses went back to court, and found that the court said, okay, 
they don't have a right to walk the cows on your 23 acres, but they do 
have a right to move the water to the cows through a pipe or a ditch. 
The Forest Service responded by electrifying the fence.
  That is the kind of fight that we are in right now. A couple years 
ago, I stood out over that water for about 2\1/2\ or 3 hours with the 
Forest Service, the Gosses, and we all negotiated that the fences could 
be brought in, that accommodations could be met, that we could find 
habitat other places. And it was all agreed we would get to the water.
  Then, subsequently, the Fish and Wildlife Service said, well, there 
is a jumping mouse. They admitted themselves that the science was not 
very good, that they had never seen one of the jumping mice there, but 
they thought it might be there. They admitted that the science was very 
terrible.
  Despite the lack of any scientific evidence, despite everything, now 
that area has been shut back off.
  There are many areas where the jumping mouse could have a critical 
habitat, but the agency just refuses to do it.
  So my amendment is quite simple. It simply says that the New Mexico 
meadow jumping mouse cannot be listed as endangered or threatened until 
they do some better science. It is a very straightforward amendment 
where we are trying to find the balance between the Endangered Species 
Act and the need for jobs, the need for an economy in the West. And 
that revolves around open spaces, ranchland, water. It all comes 
together in this one single issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment clearly would prohibit 
Fish and Wildlife Service from implementing or enforcing the endangered 
species listing of the New Mexico jumping mouse under the Endangered 
Species Act. It would restrict the Service from offering critical 
protections to preserve the species.
  This amendment is harmful. Once a species is listed under the 
Endangered Species Act, the role of Fish and Wildlife is primarily 
permissive, helping parties comply with the act as they carry out their 
activities.
  Now, the majority of the habitat of the New Mexico jumping mouse is 
on Federal land, and Fish and Wildlife is working with the Forest 
Service to develop conservation measures that will protect the mouse 
while allowing livestock grazing on Forest Service lands and assuring 
adequate water for these cattle.
  Since the endangered species listing, members of the livestock 
community

[[Page H6518]]

have voiced concern about their impacts to people who recreate and make 
their livelihood on Forest Service lands, which result from addressing 
the needs of the mouse.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service has established three working groups to 
address these concerns, and they have come up with some creative 
solutions, like establishing cattle lanes to assure cattle can have 
access to water while protecting the vegetation necessary for the 
survival of the mouse.
  We have been in contact, and we find that there is a lot of 
excitement and there is a lot of cooperation going on. So I would like 
to work with the Service to make sure that we give this a full chance 
of working.

                              {time}  1830

  Under this amendment, the Service would not be able to continue to 
recover this species, though all the Endangered Species Act 
prohibitions would still apply. So the Service wouldn't be able to 
continue to recover the species under this amendment, but all the other 
activities of the Endangered Species Act would still apply. So the 
Service wouldn't be able to work collaboratively any longer with 
stakeholders to provide ESA compliance.
  The Service has a statutory requirement to implement the Endangered 
Species Act. Defunding the Agency's ability to fulfill these legal 
requirements just makes the Agency and the Federal Government more 
vulnerable to lawsuits, which is an unnecessary cost for American 
taxpayers.
  Additionally, this amendment would limit the Service from undertaking 
a required status review of the subspecies or from initiating any 
rulemaking to downlist or even delist this species, when it became 
appropriate.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, with respect to the gentlewoman, if the 
science underlying the decision was sound, and even the Agency itself 
has admitted that the science was seriously flawed--if the stakes were 
not so high--the entire listing of species would demand sound science. 
So this is a serious problem throughout the West and throughout the 
United States.
  If it weren't a matter of being able to provide jobs and have 
economies in these big rural areas of New Mexico, and there are no 
other tax bases in those areas, so as we crowd out the ranchers, then 
counties simply don't have the revenues to survive themselves.
  If the stakes weren't these, then I would listen more closely to the 
gentlewoman's arguments. But as it is, I just don't think that we can 
sustain a decision like this. If the Fish and Wildlife Service had 
showed up at that meeting where we found other critical habitat within 
a couple of miles, it is just that critical habitat didn't block access 
to this source of water, the only source of water in that section of 
the ranch, and these are ranches that are on mountain ranges.
  So you have the inability for cows to cross the mountain ranges over 
to the next range. Also, it is miles in between some of the loading 
stations and the water stations.
  So these are things that compel me to say that we have to find 
something different here. We want the Agency to reconsider it, to look 
for better science, to look for better critical habitat.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman wasn't here earlier, 
because he was attending to other work and now has come down to do his 
amendment, but I have been making the case that this type of 
authorizing language, these types of debates and discussions, should be 
taking place in the authorizing committee where we can bring in the 
Service, bring in the ranchers, find out what we need to do better to 
create win-wins.
  When we just come and put things on the appropriations bill, it 
doesn't allow for that full vetting. It doesn't allow us that 
opportunity to work with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
after the authorizing committee is coming through and figuring out 
where we need to adjust the budget, or what we need to do, or how we 
need to do oversight to make sure that the Fish and Wildlife Service is 
doing things that the gentleman is talking about.
  So, an interesting thing, we got some information from the Service, 
and the Service has been working with the research community to expand 
the survey of the jumping mouse outside its currently known occupied 
areas. The goal of this expansion effort is to document additional 
populations. If they document additional populations, we could possibly 
move toward downlisting or delisting the species, as appropriate. But 
your amendment, unfortunately, would block that.
  I would like to see this type of amendment be brought up under the 
majority--the majority is the same in the Senate, and the majority is 
in control of the White House--and have an opportunity to do the right 
kind of oversight to make sure that, when we are doing legislation with 
the best of intentions--if this survey were to come back and say that 
we could downlist or delist the species, this amendment would prohibit 
us from doing it.
  So, at this time, I will oppose the gentleman's amendment. But I 
thank him for bringing this attention to the floor, and I will look 
more into it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, again, I respect the gentlewoman's opinions 
and observations.
  I would point out that these are 1907 water rights, which, in New 
Mexico, water rights are given, and the earlier, the better. So they 
can't get access because of the listing of a species. The science is 
very flawed.
  The Agency had the opportunity to go out to the forest with us. And 
that day, they simply turned down the opportunity to meet with us. We 
had the State forester, the head of the U.S. Forest Service of New 
Mexico there. We had the regional forester. Everyone was there except 
the people who really needed to be there. They refused our invitation.
  I have been working on this single issue for 14 years myself, so it 
is not like we haven't been discussing the issue at length.
  Again, with that, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico 
will be postponed.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 61 will 
not be offered.


                 Amendment No. 62 Offered by Mr. Pearce

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 62 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:


                       limitation on use of funds

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act shall 
     be used to draft, propose, finalize, implement, enforce, or 
     carry out any rulemaking on the lesser prairie-chicken 
     (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) under section 4 of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, this issue is very similar to the last one.
  As we approached the year 2013-2014, discussions were going on with 
Fish and Wildlife Service about the potential listing either as 
endangered or threatened of the lesser prairie chicken. We began to ask 
for volunteers. We asked for farmers and ranchers, for oil and gas 
companies, to work together to really come up with a collaborative plan 
in order to avoid the listing for the lesser prairie chicken as either 
threatened or endangered, and the industries responded very well.

[[Page H6519]]

  To date, partners in that effort have contributed more than $64 
million in enrollment and mitigation fees. They have agreed to conserve 
more than 150,000 acres of habitat.
  It was at that point that the Fish and Wildlife Service said, okay, 
this is the best effort we have had in this collaboration nationwide. 
They were all ecstatic. Then they turned around about a month later and 
simply listed the lesser prairie chicken.
  Again, the science was somewhat lacking in that. So, in 2015, a 
Federal district court looked at the issue, and they vacated the 
finding and said that the Fish and Wildlife Service took no account of 
the ongoing conservation.
  Keep in mind that the conservation efforts actually have been 
working. Just this year, the number of birds is up from 30,000 to 
39,000, so almost a 25 percent increase in the population. That is 
exactly what these collaborative efforts were intended to do.
  The court found that the Fish and Wildlife Service didn't conduct a 
proper analysis and that the analysis they did was neither rigorous nor 
valid.
  So we are simply asking, in this amendment, that the lesser prairie 
chicken not be listed, that it be delisted.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, in 2016, the Service officially removed 
the lesser prairie chicken from the Federal list of endangered and 
threatened wildlife in accordance with the September 2015 court order 
vacating the Service's 2014 delisting determination, as the gentleman 
pointed out.
  Now, the administration action was taken in light of the decision not 
to appeal the court's ruling. So they decided they weren't going to 
appeal, but they were going to try to move forward.
  So the Service is currently conducting a species status assessment to 
characterize the current and future conditions of the lesser prairie 
chicken. The assessment takes into account both the threats and 
conservation efforts.
  When I was in Nevada--I wasn't in your State, sir, but I was in 
Nevada with one of our other colleagues--I saw amazing work that was 
being done in collaboration, in fact, with an energy company, amazing 
work being done.
  The gentleman from Nevada was unable to produce one prairie chicken 
for me to see that morning when we were out, but I believe that they 
are there and that the conservation is working, in spite of the fact 
that I didn't get to see one lesser prairie chicken.
  But going back, the draft report was shared with peer and partner 
reviews, and the Service is working with them to get feedback. If the 
Service determines the listing of the lesser prairie chicken as 
threatened or endangered is warranted, it is unlikely that any 
rulemaking could be completed before 2018. So that would take 2 years, 
in which Congress could take action.
  I would like the Service to be able to continue working closely with 
its partners, including State fish and wildlife agencies, the Western 
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agency, the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, industry, private landowners, and other partners, in the 
interest of conserving the lesser prairie chicken.
  So what the amendment does, and why I am objecting to it, it halts, 
it stops, that transparent process that is working properly, that I saw 
in the field working properly and providing ample opportunity for 
public comment in how we could move forward.
  So this amendment would make the decision. It would make the decision 
final about the conservation of the species on the basis of what is 
not, in my opinion, good science. So, at this time, I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I hope all partners continue 
to work together.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Estes).
  Mr. ESTES of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support amendment 
No. 62 to H.R. 6147. This amendment modernizes the Endangered Species 
Act and recognizes voluntary conservation efforts to protect the lesser 
prairie chicken.
  In 2015, the species native to western Kansas was inaccurately listed 
as threatened under the Endangered Species Act due to a multiyear 
drought. Since then, Kansas farmers and ranchers have devoted millions 
of dollars toward successful conservation through a range-wide plan. 
This along with increased rainfall has led to an increase in the lesser 
prairie chicken population.
  However, recently, the push to list the species as endangered was 
restarted, disregarding these voluntary efforts. I am glad this 
amendment recognizes the private conservation efforts toward the lesser 
prairie chicken. I cosponsored a similar measure in the farm bill, and 
I appreciate Representatives Pearce and Marshall for offering this 
amendment. I ask my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert), the chairman of the subcommittee.

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment.
  In 2015, a Federal court ordered the Fish and Wildlife Service to 
remove the lesser prairie chicken from the list of threatened and 
endangered species. Environmental activists immediately petitioned the 
Agency to list the species again, and the Agency, having been stung by 
the court, concluded that the petition had merit.
  Now the Agency is on the verge of listing the species yet again, and 
it will end up in court again, where it will be delisted again. Rinse 
and repeat.
  Folks, how many times must we repeat this cycle before people start 
working together? How much money must be wasted fighting each other 
before we realize that our money is better spent actually helping the 
species?
  This amendment calls a timeout on the madness, at least for one 
species. That is why I am urging an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, again, I would point out that the 
collaboration was unprecedented across the Nation. What is going to 
happen, if this collaboration fails, is that others are going to say, 
okay, that collaboration process simply doesn't work.
  Though, again, the courts, we are simply agreeing with the court 
findings in the matter that the Fish and Wildlife Service failed to ask 
very important questions and needs to reaccomplish the evaluation.
  All in all, the States and local areas can and will pitch in to help 
the species survive. But the heavy-handed approach coming from the Fish 
and Wildlife Service simply, again, is going to kill jobs and kill the 
potential of collaborative efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1845


                 AMENDMENT NO. 63 OFFERED BY MR. GOSAR

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 63 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to carry out Proclamation 7320 entitled 
     ``Establishment of the Ironwood Forest National Monument'' 
     issued by the President of the United States on June 9, 2000.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.

[[Page H6520]]

  

  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that supports 
recreational shooting, K-12 education, and responsible energy 
development by prohibiting funds for the Ironwood Forest National 
Monument that was unilaterally designated under the Antiquities Act.
  By looking at the map here, it is very clear that this monument was a 
political land grab meant to prevent responsible energy and mineral 
production, as well as multiple use on Federal lands. You couldn't 
construct something even worse than that.
  As you can see, the monument boundary starts in the right corner here 
in the yellow and includes a large mineral deposit that includes 
molybdenum, manganese, gold, and peripheral lead-zinc-silver.
  The boundary then works its way up and also encircles the purple, 
which is a significant copper deposit.
  Continuing to move up to the green, the monument encompasses 
significant amounts of lead, zinc, and silver veins.
  Moving further up the map to the next yellow, the monument encircles 
the entire Silver Bell Mine and operations, as well as other claims, 
and also encompasses massive mineral deposits that contain molybdenum, 
manganese, gold, and peripheral lead-zinc-silver.
  Moving to the blue and to the top left of the monument, the boundary 
almost entirely encircles two large veins that contain barium, lead, 
and silver.
  Essentially, all the colored areas on the map are off limits to new 
energy and mineral exploration and development as a result of the 
monument land grab.
  Proponents claim the 188,619-acre monument is necessary to protect a 
stand of ironwood trees covering 640 acres. Let me repeat that. 
Proponents claim the 188,619-acre monument is necessary to protect a 
stand of ironwood trees covering 640 acres.
  Wow. If this unilateral monument designation was not political, it 
would have had a significantly different boundary and been much 
smaller.
  There is nothing glamorous about this monument, and it was an 
unconstitutional taking by then-Secretary Babbitt and the Clinton 
administration, pointblank.
  The Arizona Mining Association, Arizona Rock Products Association, 
Arizona Mining Industry Gets Our Support, and the Southern Arizona 
Business Coalition recently asked for this monument to be modified 
significantly, stating: ``One-third of the area encompassed in the 
Ironwood Monument is either State trust lands or privately owned. These 
lands have effectively lost all economic potential as a result of the 
national monument designation. . . . At the time of the designation, 
the State government estimated that it would lose $100 million in 
mineral rights. This does not include financial losses to private 
companies or the lost employment potential for the mines.''
  Asarco and Liberty Star Uranium and Metals Corporation of Tucson have 
also asked for this monument to be significantly altered.
  Further, the Ironwood Forest National Monument has caused harm to the 
common schools beneficiary, K-12 education, by locking up these lands, 
preventing multiple use, and stopping important revenues from flowing 
to the educational coffers.
  The Ironwood Forest National Monument enacted a complete ban on 
recreational shooting. No utility corridors are allowed in the 
monument. One-quarter of the monument can be closed to human entry for 
over one-third of the year due to the presence of sheep, and nearly 
10,000 acres of this monument are completely locked up at all times. 
Further, the monument constitutes an attack on ranchers by negatively 
impacting grazing.
  This monument designation was an unconstitutional taking. Asarco 
invested $72 million prior to the monument designation in hopes of 
expanding the mine. They will likely invest several hundred million 
more, create new jobs, and grow the economy if the mine is no longer 
within the monument boundary.
  The Arizona Game and Fish Department has not been able to fully 
implement vital management activities within the monument boundaries, 
including fencing to protect wildlife, predator control, law 
enforcement wildlife investigations, and responses to illegal wildlife 
activities.
  In November, 24 Members of Congress sent President Trump a letter 
recommending a recession of this monument amongst other monument 
recommendations. That letter was endorsed by the American Farm Bureau 
Federation, Americans for Responsible Recreation Access, the National 
Cattlemen's Beef Association, and the Public Lands Council.
  This amendment is endorsed by the American Exploration and Mining 
Association, American Encore, AMIGOS, Asarco Mining, the Competitive 
Enterprise Institute, Free Market America, the Arizona Farm Bureau, 
Arizona Liberty, the Arizona Pork Council, Concerned Citizens for 
America, Eagle Motorcycles, Rim Country Custom Rods, the Southern 
Arizona Business Coalition, and Yavapai County Supervisor Jack R. 
Smith, amongst others.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their time 
and for their good work on this bill.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Arizona has expired.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
that seeks to eliminate the Ironwood Forest National Monument, which is 
in my district. The fact that it is in my district is secondary to the 
callous disregard to the public input, the wishes of the people of 
southern Arizona, the history of the area, and the biodiversity that 
this amendment attacks.

  This amendment effectively repeals the monument, returning the lands 
back to multiple-use status, and opening them up for unfettered mining 
and other harmful activities.
  The sponsor of the legislation says that it is necessary to restore 
access for recreational shooting and to generate revenue for local 
schools, which I understand is a nod to the potential revenue garnered 
from future mining operations that he envisions will pop up once the 
monument is eliminated. He speaks for the mining industry, not 
Arizonans, and certainly not my constituents.
  A recent poll found that 73 percent of the people of Arizona oppose 
eliminating protections for national monuments. Arizonans don't want 
mining in their monuments, but that doesn't seem to matter to the 
sponsor of this amendment, who will seemingly do whatever it takes to 
roll back public lands protections.
  I also take issue with the sponsor of the amendment's notion that 
this amendment is about protecting access for recreational shooting. 
When the monument was established, recreational shooting was allowed, 
as it is on a large percentage of public lands. Unfortunately, some bad 
actors forced local land managers to rethink access for the entire 
shooting community. People were shooting up endangered cacti, leaving 
bullet hole-ridden sofas and other trash throughout the desert. Those 
were used as targets.
  One of the great things about living in Tucson and southern Arizona 
is that we are surrounded by public lands. Our protected desert 
landscapes support wildlife and an abundant biodiversity to a wide 
range of recreational activities.
  Unfortunately, this amendment views these rare landscapes as 
commodities, only available for extraction of resources and nothing 
more. It is kind of a corporate radar approach and mentality to our 
shared public assets and lands: use them, abuse them, discard them, and 
see how much we can make out of them, in terms of money.
  The spirit of conservation and preservation is very important to the 
people of southern Arizona, and this is one of our special places. This 
amendment is an attack on the people, its history, and our traditions 
in southern Arizona. This amendment is an attack on the Antiquities 
Act, and this amendment is an attack on our public lands.
  This monument was created in the year 2000 by President Clinton after 
the Pima County Board of Supervisors, the elected officials for the 
county, petitioned for it; the Tohono O'odham Nation petitioned for it; 
the people of southern Arizona petitioned for it; and that monument was 
created.

[[Page H6521]]

  The vice chairman of the Tohono O'odham Nation, Mr. Verlon Jose, 
said, today: ``The Tohono O'odham have lived in this region since time 
immemorial, and the Ironwood Forest National Monument has tremendous 
cultural and historical importance. More than 200 important 
archeological sites with remains from our ancestors are within the 
monument, including two areas listed on the National Register of 
Historic Places. We must oppose misguided efforts to withhold funding 
from Ironwood, as it would have a devastating effect on efforts to 
protect this national treasure.''
  Mr. Chairman, the issue here today is about trying to relive and undo 
a decision that was made with public participation, public input, the 
support of local elected officials, the support of affected Tribes, and 
do it for the specific interests of a mining company that feels they 
have a right, even though it is a foreign-owned company, to come in on 
our public lands, withdraw minerals, pay no royalties, and exploit the 
area.
  The Ironwood Forest National Monument is a landscape treasure. It is 
a rare treasure, and it needs to be maintained. I urge a ``no'' vote on 
this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, look at how this monument is connected and 
concocted. I think every which way. You couldn't make a worse 
definition for a monument.
  What it basically does is it goes to the far side to catch these two 
minerals over here. Down here in the middle, it goes to the far edge. 
This is called gerrymandering for minerals. This is a political bias 
based upon takings from the people of Arizona.
  Remember, I responded by saying: Listen, one-third of this 
designation was private and State lands. These are part of the 
dedication to the citizens of Arizona.
  So when you look at this, this is the worst concocted. This is the 
vanity of, actually, atrocities of monuments gone haywire.
  Now, I am happy to work with the gentleman from southern Arizona to 
rightsize this monument. I would be happy to do that. But this 
concoction is a blatant exercise in overjurisdiction of the Federal 
Government and misutilizing the Antiquities Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask everybody to vote for my amendment.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 64 Offered by Mr. Posey

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 64 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used in contravention of Federal Acquisition Regulation 
     6.101(a) with respect to aviation helmets.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Posey) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, this is really pretty simple.
  A constituent came to me with a problem concerning procurement for 
aviation helmets. He has a manufacturing company here in the United 
States, but he is not able to sell his helmets to the Department of the 
Interior.
  His helmets are not inferior. They are used by many industries. They 
are used in many countries. But he is not on the approved list for 
Federal agencies. Currently, the approved list includes only one 
manufacturer.
  My amendment will change this by providing additional options through 
competition. The amendment requires compliance with the Federal 
acquisition regulation policy that ensures a full and open process in 
procuring aviation helmets.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
great amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 65 Offered by Mr. Denham

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 65 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this act may 
     be used by the Secretary to modify operations of the New 
     Melones reservoir authorized in section 10 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1944 (58 Stat. 887, 901) for the purposes of 
     executing any component of the State Water Resources Control 
     Board of California's Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Denham) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prevents a huge water grab 
by the State of California from farmers and communities in California's 
Central Valley.
  Under Sacramento's new plan, residents and farmers, alike, will 
suffer skyrocketing rates that will cripple our local economy, our 
farms, and our communities. Specifically, the State is mandating 40 
percent of the water from Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced Rivers to be 
flushed out into the ocean.

                              {time}  1900

  Currently, we are losing about 25 percent of our current water being 
flushed out by these mandated flows. This will increase it to 40 
percent. This water feeds the Central Valley Project and the farmers 
that rely on it. My community relies on this water for drinking, to 
operate our local businesses, and for green power. This powers our 
local communities.
  The amendment prevents the State from robbing water from the Valley 
and protects the New Melones reservoir from depletion. The New Melones 
is a Federal facility that provides water for the Central Valley, and 
generates hydropower for Californians.
  The Bay-Delta Plan will drain significantly more water from New 
Melones each year than it currently releases, leaving the reservoir 
completely dry some years. The reservoir will be unable to meet its 
water obligations to the federally-authorized Central Valley project, 
which is critical to moving water all across the Central Valley. Lower 
water levels will reduce the ability to generate power.
  My amendment prevents Federal dollars from contributing to this 
misguided plan, and the State from robbing our water. We need more 
water in the valley, not less.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. This amendment seeks to block collaborative water 
management in California. Such management is aimed at benefiting all 
water users, cities, farmers, Tribes, the fishing industry, and 
recreation interests.
  Specifically, this amendment blocks Federal compliance with the 
California Bay-Delta Plan, which is a plan being developed by the State 
of California to prevent the collapse of California's iconic salmon 
fisheries, and to preserve all beneficial use of the State's water.

[[Page H6522]]

  After a decade of research and public outreach, the State government 
is close to finalizing the Bay-Delta Plan. It will increase water flows 
into the California Bay-Delta from the San Joaquin River. The increased 
flows will improve salmon survival and prevent an unfolding ecological 
crisis in the Bay-Delta, which is key for the environment for the Bay 
and the Pacific Northwest fisheries, one of the most valuable and 
unique ecosystems in the world.
  While multiple factors have contributed to recent salmon declines, a 
key factor has been unsustainably large water diversions from the 
California rivers. The Bay-Delta seeks to address this by reducing 
diversions and increasing river flow.
  Mr. Chair, this obviously is an amendment which the author is very 
passionate about. This also is something that the State of California 
has engaged in.
  This amendment, in my opinion, once again, should be something that 
should be handled in an authorizing committee so the State of 
California can come in, the gentleman and his proponents of what the 
State is doing can have a discussion, and then the authorizers can work 
their will and let the appropriators know whether or not to move 
forward on this.
  To do this amendment here shuts out a full, transparent discussion 
about what should or should not take place in the State of California, 
where the California citizens all across the State have had input with 
their elected officials on how to move forward.
  So this amendment seeks to undermine what appears to be a successful 
implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan, which California has seen as a 
necessary step toward preventing precious fishery declines and the loss 
of thousands of jobs that rely on healthy fish and functioning 
ecosystems.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock). The reservoir resides in his district.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
for bringing this amendment to the floor.
  The gentlewoman from Minnesota misses an important fact, and that is 
that the current massive water diversions have done absolutely nothing 
to improve salmon populations.
  By taking those diversions to 40 percent unimpaired flow to the 
ocean, in practical terms, this means that New Melones and Don Pedro 
reservoirs in my district will be drained to their dead-pool levels 
each fall.
  It would destroy what's left of agriculture in California's Central 
Valley, destroy the tourism these reservoirs attract in my region, and 
create catastrophic water shortages in one of the most water-rich 
regions of the Nation.
  We don't build these reservoirs to dump water into the ocean. We 
build them to store surplus water from wet years so that we have it in 
dry ones.
  This is insanity. It is the result of years of greens-gone-wild 
radicalism in California. This amendment assures that the Federal 
Government will not participate in such nonsense.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. LaMalfa).
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, in rising to support my colleague, Mr. 
Denham, on this amendment, I note that the California State Water Board 
is contemplating their next water grab, and how disconnected from 
reality these regulators are.
  In the latest plan, they want to take 40 percent of the flows from 
San Joaquin. Concurrently, they have a pending proposal to also 
increase the volume of flows from the Sacramento River, in my region, 
that washes out to the ocean, all under the guise, the failing guise of 
protecting fish. They are contemplating 45 to 65 percent of unimpeded 
flow.
  We already know that when it comes to protectin people or fish, 
Sacramento always decides to choose the latter. This plan defies even 
basic common sense or fairness.

  Instead, it relies on questionable science to impose arbitrary 
restrictions, with no solutions to address the loss of habitat for 
native species, or even the predators in the delta, which we already 
know to be a major threat to the fish population. Up to 90 percent of 
the affected species are devoured by these predator fish.
  It offers no recourse for the devastating impact it will have on jobs 
and local economies.
  I would like to remind the regulators, California voters 
overwhelmingly supported the effort to direct $2.7 billion for water 
storage projects, recognizing the need to invest in infrastructure such 
as Sites Reservoir.
  If that project already existed, the reservoir would be nearly full 
right now, providing enough water to serve 3.6 million Californians for 
an entire year, and relieve the stress on the Sacramento and Central 
Valley water systems.
  Mr. Chair, we need some common sense. I urge my colleagues to support 
Mr. Denham's amendment.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to how much time both 
sides have?
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Comer). The gentlewoman from Minnesota has 2\1/
2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McNerney).
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, I understand my colleague's position on 
this. Water is a scarce commodity. You want to have access to water. 
You want to plant your trees. You want to feed your stocks and all 
that.
  But what you are not saying is what is going to happen if you 
continue to take more water from the delta. The delta is a finite water 
supply. The more you take water from the delta, the more saltwater from 
the ocean comes in and poisons our facilities, our docks, our fishing, 
it changes the whole environment. And we are going to cost jobs if you 
do that, so it is really a balance.
  Now, I think it is okay to work together to find a proper amount of 
water to ship out and a proper amount of water to stay in the delta. 
When we have bigger rain events, the water pushes the saltwater back 
out toward the ocean. It clears out water a little bit.
  So, I mean, it is not like we are just trying to save water to hurt 
you guys. That is not what is going on here. We have our own interests 
to take care of.
  This is always a fight. What we need to do is sit down and compromise 
and find some way to get through this so that we don't end up hurting 
one another, which is what happens.
  Again, I understand the position you are in. I understand the need 
for water. California is a dry State. We have years and years of 
drought. But continuing to demand access to water when there is only a 
finite supply, every year you want more, that is not going to work. It 
is just not going to work.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, our State Water Board is out of control. 
Our State Water Board is involved in a political operation to remove 
farming out of the State of California.
  This amendment would attempt to put a stop to the reckless State plan 
and continue the current New Melones operations. This is something we 
need to act on and act on immediately. We are in crisis.
  I am a strong advocate for Mr. Denham's position and, certainly, for 
his constituents, and I am glad to support this amendment.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, at this time I will make my remarks to 
close.
  This amendment is an attempt to get the Congress involved in 
undermining a State's rights and its prerogatives.
  The Federal Government should be assisting California in ways to 
restore the State's rivers and recover needed fisheries, instead of 
trying to interfere with obstruction from Washington. I often hear my 
colleagues say that Washington should get out of the way. In this case, 
I totally agree.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chair, the gentleman talks about a compromise. I will 
not compromise and allow our people to go without water, people that

[[Page H6523]]

have no drinking water, only to have FEMA come in and bring bottled 
water. I will not shut down our farms. That is not a compromise.
  This is a Federal project that has our water for our community that 
now they want to double the amount that goes out to the ocean. It is a 
waste. It is harmful to our community. It will shut down our 
agriculture, and it will leave people without potable drinking water.
  This is insanity to try to say that you are saving the fish when 
there is no science. This will harm the fish. Without water, without 
green power, and without cold water, you will kill the very fish that 
you are trying to save.
  I believe that our farms deserve this, our communities deserve this, 
and our people must have it to survive.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 66 Offered by Mr. Abraham

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 66 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:


   limitation on use of funds to restrict certain use of genetically 
              modified crops in national wildlife refuges

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enforce any prohibition or limitation of any kind 
     in a cooperative agreement referred to in section 29.2 of 
     title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, on the planting of 
     genetically modified crops in a national wildlife refuge.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Abraham) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, the Fish and Wildlife Service regularly 
enters into cooperative agricultural agreement with farmers to plant 
and raise crops on farm fields on national wildlife refuge land. Those 
agreements require that the farmers leave a portion of that crop 
standing over the winter in order to provide cover and forage for 
wildlife. In the spring, those farmers plow up everything and start all 
over again.
  In 2014, the Fish and Wildlife Service began to prevent farmers who 
entered into these agreements from planting GMO seed. This action was 
not based on facts, it was not on rules, and this action is harmful to 
both wildlife and to the farmers who are providing that food and cover.
  GMO crops are proven safe. They use less water. They use less 
pesticides. They use less fertilizer, and they feed much of the world, 
both humans and animals.
  Wildlife groups like Ducks Unlimited support this amendment, and I 
ask for your support, too.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.

                              {time}  1915

  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, this amendment clearly would prohibit Fish 
and Wildlife Service from enforcing limitations or prohibitions on the 
use of genetically modified seed in commercial agricultural operations 
conducted on national wildlife refuges.
  As the gentleman pointed out, in 2014, a decision to curtail the use 
of genetically modified seeds or crops, GMOs, for use on National 
Wildlife Refuge System lands by 2016 grew out of several years of 
litigation successfully brought against U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
  During the term of the litigation, the courts did not allow the use 
of GMOs. As a result of this restriction, the refuges found that they 
were able to meet their biological objectives and accomplish their 
wildlife management purposes without the use of GMOs and that GMO use 
could be curtailed nationwide.
  This approach avoids costly litigation for the taxpayers and the need 
for additional site-specific compatibility determinations and NEPA 
analysis of GMO crops. It is a saver of the taxpayers' dollars.
  Fish and Wildlife Service has proven over several years that they can 
accomplish their wildlife objectives without the use of GMOs. However, 
Fish and Wildlife policy on biological diversity, integrity, and 
environmental health does allow for the use of GMOs when it is 
essential to accomplish the refuge purposes and is approved by the 
Regional Refuge Chief.
  This amendment jeopardizes the current FWS policy that is based on 
years of experience. We should be supporting Fish and Wildlife Service 
and its efforts, not blocking the agency from doing its job.
  Mr. Chair, once again, this is the appropriations portion of Fish and 
Wildlife. This clearly is something that has gone through the court 
system, that has gone through authorization. It is a policy discussion 
and it should be done in the policy committee. It should be done where 
people can come in and testify and have their debate in full 
transparency. It should be done then and brought to the floor.
  Mr. Chair, the majority controls the House, the Senate, and the White 
House. I would encourage the author of the amendment to not use the 
appropriation bills to put more riders on.
  The gentleman may or may not be aware, Mr. Chair, that the Senate has 
no riders on its bill at all. And I believe that this could really put 
the chairman and myself, as the ranking member, possibly at a 
disadvantage when we go to reallocate those precious dollars, with all 
the requests that we have had on the floor over the past 2 days, when 
we go into doing what our job is, the appropriations.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.
  The National Academy of Sciences was established by Congress in 1863 
in the midst of the Civil War to provide independent, objective advice 
to the Nation on matters related to science and technology.
  The Academy, in 2016, released a comprehensive literature review on 
the science of genetically engineered crops, or GMOs as they are 
commonly referred to. The Academy found zero scientific evidence that 
GMOs are any more or any less safe for human consumption and the 
environment than organisms modified by more traditional genetic 
methods, like selective breeding.
  This amendment blocks an outdated policy made during the last 
administration which pandered to extreme environmental groups by 
feeding into the unfounded fears of GMOs. This amendment is an 
opportunity to rise above fear-mongering and make sound policy based on 
science and rationality.
  Mr. Chair, let's do the right thing and vote ``aye.''
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I just ask that my colleagues support this 
commonsense amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Abraham).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 67 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 67 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to eliminate the Urban Wildlife Refuge Partnership.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is prohibiting the use of 
appropriated funds to eliminate the Urban Wildlife Refuge Partnership, 
or

[[Page H6524]]

programs, that are for the reforestation of urban areas. In fact, I 
celebrate and support the increase in funding. This amendment is 
particularly helpful, I hope, to create the legislative history of the 
importance of the urban reforestation program.
  Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member as well as the chairman of this 
committee for recognizing the importance of urban reforestation.
  This amendment emphasizes the importance of the Urban Wildlife Refuge 
Partnership in urban forests and preserves our ability to return urban 
areas to healthy and safe living environments for our children. I have 
offered similar amendments because I want an ongoing creation of 
legislative history to ensure that this program is kept.
  In the past 30 years alone, we have lost 30 percent of all of our 
urban trees, a loss of over 600 million trees. Eighty percent of the 
American population lives in dense quarters of the city. Reforestation 
programs return a tool of nature to concrete areas that can help remove 
air pollution, filter out chemicals and agricultural waste in water, 
and save communities millions of dollars in stormwater management 
costs.
  I have certainly seen the devastation of droughts right in large 
cities. In particular, Houston, a couple years ago, lost many, many 
trees in a severe drought that we experienced over the summer. It took 
many community investors--when I say that, nonprofits--and Federal 
dollars to restore green life to Houston.
  We know that asthma is on the rise. In people below the Federal 
poverty threshold, we see asthma increasing. Asthma comes when children 
have to be subjected to polluted air.
  Some of the reasons individuals at lower income may have increased 
risk of asthma are increased exposure to indoor and outdoor pollutants, 
cigarette smoking, secondhand smoke exposure, and nearby industrial 
pollutants and highway traffic.
  The good news is that trees provide the source of oxygen that is so 
necessary, and it comes about through a scientific process that I will 
discuss a little bit later.
  We have a headline here from Science Daily that says: ``Cities and 
Communities in the U.S. Losing 36 Million Trees a Year.''
  And then another headline: ``Researchers Suggest Reforestation Around 
Urban Areas to Reduce Ozone Levels,'' which enhances, creates, makes 
worse the asthma that many of our children suffer from.
  Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Thank you for this opportunity to speak in support of my amendment to 
Division A of H.R. 6147, the Interior and Environment Appropriations 
Act for Fiscal Year 2019 and to commend Chairman Calvert and Ranking 
Member McCollum for their leadership in shepherding this bill through 
the legislative process.
  Among other agencies, this legislation funds the U.S. Forest Service, 
the National Park System, and the Smithsonian Institution, which 
operates our national museums including the National Zoo.
  Mr. Chair, my amendment is simple but it sends a very important 
message from the Congress of the United States.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment emphasizes the importance of Urban Wildlife 
Refuge Partnerships and urban forests, and preserves our ability to 
return urban areas to healthy and safe living environments for our 
children.
  Similar amendments were offered and accepted in the Interior and 
Environment Appropriations Acts for Fiscal Year 2018 (H.R. 3354), 
Fiscal Year 2017 (H.R. 5538), Fiscal Year 2016 (H.R. 2822), Fiscal Year 
2008 (H.R. 2643), and Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5386), and were adopted by 
voice vote.
  Mr. Chair, surveys indicate that some urban forests are in serious 
danger.
  In the past 30 years alone, we have lost 30 percent of all our urban 
trees--a loss of over 600 million trees.
  Eighty percent of the American population lives in the dense quarters 
of a city.
  Reforestation programs return a tool of nature to a concrete area 
that can help to remove air pollution, filter out chemicals and 
agricultural waste in water, and save communities millions of dollars 
in storm water management costs.
  I have certainly seen neighborhoods in Houston benefit from urban 
reforestation.
  In addition, havens of green in the middle of a city can have 
beneficial effects on a community's health, both physical and 
psychological, as well as increase property value of surrounding real 
estate.
  Reforestation of cities is an innovative way of combating urban 
sprawl and deterioration.
  Mr. Chair, a real commitment to enhancing our environment involves 
both the protection of existing natural resources and active support 
for restoration and improvement projects.
  Several years ago, American Forests, a leading conservation group, 
estimated that the tree cover lost in the greater Washington 
metropolitan area from 1973 to 1997 resulted in an additional 540 
million cubic feet of storm water runoff annually, which would have 
taken more than $1 billion in storm water control facilities to manage.
  Trees breathe in carbon dioxide, and produce oxygen.
  People breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.
  A typical person consumes about 38 pounds of oxygen per year.
  A healthy tree, say a 32 ft tall ash tree, can produce about 260 lb 
of oxygen annually--two trees supply the oxygen needs of a person for a 
year.
  Trees help reduce pollution by capturing particulates like dust and 
pollen with their leaves.
  A mature tree absorbs from 120 to 240 pounds of the small particles 
and gases of air pollution.
  Trees help combat the effects of ``greenhouse'' gases, the increased 
carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels that is causing our 
atmosphere to ``heat up.''
  Trees help cool down the overall city environment by shading asphalt, 
concrete and metal surfaces.
  Buildings and paving in city centers create a heat-island effect.
  A mature tree canopy reduces air temperatures by about 5-10 degrees 
Fahrenheit.
  A 25 foot tree reduces annual heating and cooling costs of a typical 
residence by 8 to 12 percent, producing an average annual savings of 
$120 per American household.
  Proper tree plantings around buildings can slow winter winds, and 
reduce annual energy use for home heating by 4-22 percent.
  Mr. Chair, trees play a vital role in making our cities more 
sustainable and more livable.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment simply provides for continued support to 
programs like Urban Wildlife Refuge Partnerships that reforest our 
urban areas.
  For all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the Jackson 
Lee Amendment and thank Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum 
for their courtesies, consideration, and very fine work in putting 
together this legislation.

                  [From Science Daily, Apr. 18, 2018]

    Cities and Communities in the US Losing 36 Million Trees a Year

         Source: USDA Forest Service--Northern Research Station

       Summary: Nationally, urban/community tree cover declined 
     from 42.9 percent to 42.2 percent between 2009-2014. This 
     translates to losing an estimated 36 million trees or 
     approximately 175,000 acres of tree cover annually.
       Scientists with the USDA Forest Service estimate that 
     between 2009 and 2014, tree cover in the Nation's urban/
     community areas declined by 0.7 percent, which translates to 
     losing an estimated 36 million trees or approximately 175,000 
     acres of tree cover annually. Pavement and other impervious 
     cover increased at a rate of about 167,000 acres a year 
     during the same period, according to research by USDA Forest 
     Service scientists.
       Nationally, urban/community tree cover declined from 42.9 
     percent to 42.2 percent. Twenty-three states had a 
     statistically significant decrease in tree cover, with a 
     total of 45 states showing a net decline. Trees improve air 
     and water quality, reduce summer energy costs by cooling 
     homes, reduce noise, mitigate runoff and flooding, and 
     enhance human health and well-being, making them important to 
     human health and urban and community infrastructure. The 
     annual benefits derived from U.S. urban forests due to air 
     pollution removal, carbon sequestration, and lowered building 
     energy use and consequent altered power plant emissions are 
     estimated at $18 billion.
       The study by Dave Nowak and Eric Greenfield of the USDA 
     Forest Service's Northern Research Station, ``Declining urban 
     and community tree cover in the United States,'' was 
     published in the journal Urban Forestry and Urban Greening.
       A table showing tree cover and impervious cover change by 
     state is available at: https://www.nrs.fsis.fed.us/news/
release/resources/cities-communities-losing-tree-cover/
 ``Urban forests are a vital part of the nation's 
     landscape,'' said Tony Ferguson, Director of the Forest 
     Service's Northern Research Station and the Forest Products 
     Laboratory. ``Forest Service research puts knowledge and 
     tools into the hands of urban forest managers that supports 
     stewardship and the wise allocation of resources.''
       States or districts with the greatest annual net percent 
     loss in urban/community tree cover were Rhode Island and the 
     District of Columbia (minus 0.44 percent), Georgia (minus 
     0.40 percent), and Alabama and Nebraska (minus 0.32 percent 
     each). States with the greatest annual net loss in tree cover 
     were Georgia (minus 18,830 acre/year), Florida (minus 18,060 
     acre/year) and Alabama (minus 12,890 acre/year).

[[Page H6525]]

       Three states--Mississippi, Montana and New Mexico--had 
     slight, nonsignificant increases in urban/community tree 
     cover. Nationally, Maine has the highest percent tree cover 
     in urban/community areas with 68 percent tree cover. At 10 
     percent tree cover, North Dakota ranked as having the lowest 
     percent urban/community tree cover.
       ``Urban forests are an important resource,'' said Nowak. 
     ``Urban foresters, planners and decision-makers need to 
     understand trends in urban forests so they can develop and 
     maintain sufficient levels of tree cover--and the 
     accompanying forest benefits--for current and future 
     generations of citizens.''
       As of 2010, urban land occupied 3 percent, or 68 million 
     acres, of the United States, while urban/community land 
     occupied just over 6 percent of the United States, or 141 
     million acres.
       Overall, urban/community impervious cover had a 
     statistically significant increase from 14.5 percent to 15.1 
     percent (an increase of o.6 percent), States with the 
     greatest annual net percent increase in impervious cover were 
     Delaware (0.28 percent), Iowa (0.26 percent), and Colorado, 
     Kansas and Ohio (0.24 percent each). States with the greatest 
     annual net increase in impervious cover were Texas (17,590 
     acre/year), Florida (13,900 acre/year) and Ohio (8,670 acre/
     year).
                                  ____


                     [From Phys.org, Sept. 9, 2014]

 Researchers Suggest Reforestation Around Urban Areas to Reduce Ozone 
                                 Levels

                             (By Bob Yirka)

       A team of research conservationists with members from 
     several universities in the U.S. is suggesting in a paper 
     they've had published in Proceedings of the National Academy 
     of Sciences, that urban areas could benefit by investing in 
     cost effective reforestation efforts around urban areas that 
     currently suffer from high ozone levels. Planting trees, they 
     suggest could help cities bring those levels down.
       The researchers note that despite aggressive efforts by 
     many metropolitan areas to lower ozone levels in ground level 
     air, levels remain high, causing the populations that live in 
     them to live with an increased risk of health problems--prior 
     research has indicated that as many as 152,000 premature 
     deaths each year can be attributed to the damage ozone 
     inflicts on lungs. Current efforts to combat ozone levels are 
     aimed at the source, factory emissions, etc. Laws limiting 
     emissions have not kept up with growth however, leading to 
     increases in ozone levels.
       The researchers suggest a different approach--remove the 
     ozone by planting trees. They suggest that land be purchased 
     on the outskirts of cities with high ozone levels to be 
     converted to forest--trees they note, remove both ozone, and 
     one of its precursors.
       To bolster their point, the researchers looked at the 
     Houston metro area in Texas, a part of the country with 
     consistently high ozone levels. Land that is currently used 
     for agriculture on the outskirts, they claim, could be 
     purchased and replanted with trees, creating a 1.5-square-
     mile forest. They estimate that over a 30 year period, the 
     reforested area could reduce ozone and precursors in ground-
     level air by 310 tons. They also note that if fast growing 
     trees were planted, timber harvests could help make up 
     initial outlays and loss of local revenue from agricultural 
     products.
       The researchers also plotted potential targets on a map of 
     the U.S., highlighting areas where reforestation would likely 
     do the most good--along the 1-95 corridor in the northeast, 
     for example, and around Chicago, Detroit and many parts of 
     California. The team concludes by noting that if something 
     isn't done, the problem of ozone pollution is only likely to 
     get worse in the face of both continued growth and as global 
     warming exacerbates the problem.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, although the base bill already continues to 
support this program at the fiscal year 2018 level, I am happy to 
accept this amendment, as I have for the past 2 years.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from California.
  As I indicated, I think that creating the additional legislative 
history of the importance of this particular program is what I hope 
will strengthen it.
  May I ask, Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 2 minutes remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the ranking member, to discuss the urban 
reforestation program, and I thank her for her leadership.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for this 
opportunity. I also thank the chairman of our subcommittee for 
accepting the amendment.
  Mr. Chair, many cities don't have urban wildlife refuges nearby, and 
to address that challenge, the Service has 21 Urban Wildlife Refuge 
Partnerships spanning the country. These partnerships have nourished an 
appreciation of wildlife conservation to new audiences, and I have seen 
them in action, empowering local community organizations to inspire 
conservation in local parks and other natural areas.
  I just want to list a few of these urban partnerships that can be 
found: New Haven; Chicago; Houston; Providence; Seattle; Baltimore; Los 
Angeles; Albuquerque; Santa Barbara; Yonkers; New Orleans; Denver; 
Philadelphia; Atlanta; Springfield, Massachusetts; Anchorage; 
Cincinnati; the twin cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, St. Paul being 
my hometown; Elizabeth, New Jersey; West Palm Beach, Florida; San Juan; 
and Alamo, Texas.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to learn more about this program.
  Once again, I thank the gentlewoman for the time, and I thank 
Chairman Calvert for accepting this amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chair, let me conclude my remarks by saying I have certainly seen 
neighborhoods in Houston benefit from urban reforestation. In addition, 
havens of green in the middle of a city can have beneficial effects on 
a community's health, both physical and psychological, as well as 
increased property values of surrounding real estate. But when you have 
had a drought, you know how important this program is. Reforestation of 
cities is an innovative way of combating urban sprawl and 
deterioration.
  Finally, let me say, photosynthesis, how many of us remember that in 
our classrooms? I love that process. That happens in plants, generally 
involves the green pigment chlorophyll, and generates oxygen as a 
byproduct, cleaning the air. That is what these programs do in urban 
America.
  Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 68 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 68 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to limit outreach programs administered by the 
     Smithsonian Institution.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member and the 
chairman of this committee for considering my amendment.
  My amendment is prohibiting the use of appropriated funds to limit 
museum outreach programs administered by the Smithsonian Institution. 
Again, for programs like this, this is to advocate and create the 
legislative history of the importance of these programs, and I am glad 
to have this amendment presented to the Congress at this time.
  Mr. Chair, in order to fulfill the Smithsonian's mission--the 
increase and diffusion of knowledge--the Smithsonian seeks to serve an 
even greater audience, and this has come about over the years by 
bringing the Smithsonian to enclaves of communities who otherwise would 
be deprived of the vast amount of cultural history offered by the 
Smithsonian.
  The Smithsonian's outreach program serves millions of Americans, 
thousands of communities, and hundreds of institutions in all 50 States 
through loans of objects, traveling exhibitions,

[[Page H6526]]

and sharing of educational resources via publications, lectures, 
presentations, training programs, and websites.
  Let me say from personal experience, one of my predecessors, the 
Honorable Mickey Leland, that many people know died in an airplane 
going into an Ethiopian mountain trying to bring food to starving 
people in Eritrea and Ethiopia, had introduced the first bill for a 
museum dealing with slave history. He did not live to see that 
legislation go forward, but later,  John Lewis introduced the 
legislation to create the Smithsonian Museum of African American 
History and Culture.
  We have it today, and it is a museum that has seen more people attend 
it, and the outreach is crucial: the board members, who are so proud to 
be a part of it, and the Congressional Black Caucus, that was the 
anchor of passing this legislation. Now we have an outstanding exhibit 
on Oprah Winfrey, and all are there to see this historic figure and 
many others.
  It is important that the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum and many 
others have the opportunity to reach out to Americans and let them know 
of these very special resources, these assets that are here.
  So this is a very important emphasis to have, and I would like to 
make sure that we continue to do it robustly so that more Americans can 
know their history.
  Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Thank you for this opportunity to speak in support of my amendment to 
Division A of H.R. 6147, the ``Interior and Environment Appropriations 
Act for Fiscal Year 2019.''
  Let me also thank Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum for 
their leadership in shepherding this bill to the floor.
  Among other agencies, this legislation funds the Smithsonian 
Institution, which operates our national museums, including the Air and 
Space Museum; the Museum of African Art; the Museum of the American 
Indian; and the National Portrait Gallery.
  The Smithsonian also operates another national treasure: the National 
Zoo.
  Mr. Chair, my amendment is simple but it sends a very important 
message from the Congress of the United States.
  The Jackson Lee amendment simply provides that:

       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to limit outreach programs administered by the 
     Smithsonian Institution.

  This amendment is identical to amendments I offered to the Interior 
and Environment Appropriations Acts for FY2017 (H.R. 3354) and FY2016 
(H.R. 2822) that were approved by voice vote.
  Mr. Chair, the Smithsonian's outreach programs bring Smithsonian 
scholars in art, history and science out of ``the nation's attic'' and 
into their own backyard.
  Each year, millions of Americans visit the Smithsonian in Washington, 
D.C.
  But in order to fulfill the Smithsonian's mission, ``the increase and 
diffusion of knowledge,'' the Smithsonian seeks to serve an even 
greater audience by bringing the Smithsonian to enclaves of communities 
who otherwise would be deprived of the vast amount of cultural history 
offered by the Smithsonian.
  The Smithsonian's outreach programs serve millions of Americans, 
thousands of communities, and hundreds of institutions in all 50 
states, through loans of objects, traveling exhibitions, and sharing of 
educational resources via publications, lectures and presentations, 
training programs, and websites.
  Smithsonian outreach programs work in close cooperation with 
Smithsonian museums and research centers, as well as with 144 affiliate 
institutions and others across the nation.
  The Smithsonian's outreach activities support community-based 
cultural and educational organizations around the country.
  They ensure a vital, recurring, and high-impact Smithsonian presence 
in all 50 states through the provision of traveling exhibitions and a 
network of affiliations.
  Smithsonian outreach programs increase connections between the 
Institution and targeted audiences (African American, Asian American, 
Latino, Native American, and new American) and provide kindergarten 
through college-age museum education and outreach opportunities.
  These outreach programs enhance K-12 science education programs, 
facilitate the Smithsonian's scholarly interactions with students and 
scholars at universities, museums, and other research institutions; and 
disseminate results related to the research and collections strengths 
of the Institution.
  The programs that provide the critical mass of Smithsonian outreach 
activity are:
  1. the Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service (SITES);
  2. the Smithsonian Affiliations, the Smithsonian Center for Education 
and Museum Studies (SCEMS);
  3. National Science Resources Center (NSRC);
  4. the Smithsonian Institution Press (SIP);
  5. the Office of Fellowships (OF); and
  6. the Smithsonian Associates (TSA), which receives no federal 
funding.
  To achieve the goal of increasing public engagement, SITES directs 
some of its federal resources to develop Smithsonian Across America: A 
Celebration of National Pride.
  This ``mobile museum,'' which will feature Smithsonian artifacts from 
the most iconic (presidential portraits, historic American flags, Civil 
War records, astronaut uniforms, etc.) to the simplest items of 
everyday life (family quilts, prairie schoolhouse furnishings, historic 
lunch boxes, multilingual store front and street signs, etc.), has been 
a long-standing organizational priority of the Smithsonian.
   SITES ``mobile museum'' is the only traveling exhibit format able to 
guarantee audience growth and expanded geographic distribution during 
sustained periods of economic retrenchment, but also because it is 
imperative for the many exhibitors nationwide who are struggling 
financially yet eager to participate in Smithsonian outreach.
  For communities still struggling to fully recover from the economic 
downturn, the ability of museums to present temporary exhibitions, the 
``mobile museum'' promises to answer an ever-growing demand for 
Smithsonian shows in the field.
  A single, conventional SITES exhibit can reach a maximum of 12 
locations over a two- to three-year period.
  In contrast, a ``mobile museum'' exhibit can visit up to three venues 
per week in the course of only one year, at no cost to the host 
institution or community.
  The net result is an increase by 150 in the number of outreach 
locations to which SITES shows can travel annually.
  And in addition to its flexibility in making short-term stops in 
cities and towns from coast-to-coast, a ``mobile museum'' has the 
advantage of being able to frequent the very locations where people 
live, work, and take part in leisure time activities.
  By establishing an exhibit presence in settings like these, SITES 
will not only increase its annual visitor participation by 1 million, 
but also advance a key Smithsonian performance objective: to develop 
exhibit approaches that address diverse audiences, including population 
groups not always affiliated with mainstream cultural institutions.
  SITES also will be the public exhibitions' face of the Smithsonian's 
National Museum of African American History and Culture, as that new 
Museum comes online.
  Providing national access to projects that will introduce the 
American public to the Museum's mission, SITES in FY 2008 will tour 
such stirring exhibitions as NASA ART: 50 Years of Exploration; 381 
Days: The Montgomery Bus Boycott Story; Beyond: Visions of Planetary 
Landscapes; The Way We Worked: Photographs from the National Archives; 
and More Than Words: Illustrated Letters from the Smithsonian's 
Archives of American Art.
  To meet the growing demand among smaller community and ethnic museums 
for an exhibition celebrating the Latino experience, SITES provided a 
scaled-down version of the National Museum of American History's 4,000-
square-foot exhibition about legendary entertainer Celia Cruz.
  Two 1,500-square-foot exhibitions, one about Crow Indian history and 
the other on basket traditions, will give Smithsonian visitors beyond 
Washington a taste of the Institution's critically acclaimed National 
Museum of the American Indian.
  Two more exhibits, ``In Plane View'' and ``Earth from Space,'' 
provided visitors an opportunity to experience the Smithsonian's 
recently opened, expansive National Air and Space Museum Udvar-Hazy 
Center.
  For almost 30 years, The Smithsonian Associates--the highly regarded 
educational arm of the Smithsonian Institution--has arranged Scholars 
in the Schools programs.
  Through this tremendously successful and well-received educational 
outreach program, the Smithsonian shares its staff--hundreds of experts 
in art, history and science--with the national community at a local 
level.
  The mission of Smithsonian Affiliations is to build a strong national 
network of museums and educational organizations in order to establish 
active and engaging relationships with communities throughout the 
country.
  There are currently 138 affiliates located in the United States, 
Puerto Rico, and Panama.
  By working with museums of diverse subject areas and scholarly 
disciplines, both emerging and well-established, Smithsonian 
Affiliations is building partnerships through which audiences and 
visitors everywhere will be able to share in the great wealth of the 
Smithsonian while building capacity and expertise in local communities.

[[Page H6527]]

  The National Science Resources Center (NSRC) strives to increase the 
number of ethnically diverse students participating in effective 
science programs based on NSRC products and services.
  The Center develops and implements a national outreach strategy that 
will increase the number of school districts (currently more than 800) 
that are implementing NSRC K-8 programs.
  The NSRC is striving to further enhance its program activity with a 
newly developed scientific outreach program introducing communities and 
school districts to science through literacy initiatives.
  In addition, through the building of the multicultural Alliance 
Initiative, the Smithsonian's outreach programs seek to develop new 
approaches to enable the public to gain access to Smithsonian 
collections, research, education, and public programs that reflect the 
diversity of the American people, including underserved audiences of 
ethnic populations and persons with disabilities.
  For all these reasons, Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of the Jackson Lee 
Amendment and thank Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum for 
their courtesies, consideration, and very fine work in putting together 
this excellent legislation.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise to approve the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I have no objection to the gentlewoman's 
amendment. It was accepted last year by voice vote, and I encourage 
adoption of the gentlewoman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the ranking member, and thank her again for 
her leadership.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from 
Texas for the time, and I would like to commend the chairman of the 
subcommittee for accepting this amendment.
  The chairman and I know the importance of museums and the wealth of 
knowledge that they share with the American public. And when we have 
the Smithsonian Day at our hearings, when the chairman puts the gavel 
down, everybody is in attendance to see what the Smithsonian is going 
to bring to the history lesson that it is going to share with the 
Members of our committee.
  We are inspired, just as these museums inspire people of all ages, to 
better understand our world, and our place in it.
  I am very pleased that the Smithsonian is going to be able to go 
forward with its public outreach programs, including exhibitions, 
programs, and online resources, which anybody can access. It ensures 
that as many Americans as possible can benefit from their vast 
collections.
  At the Science Museum of Minnesota, we call it ``Museum in a Box,'' 
and I am glad the Smithsonian is going to continue with that.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, let me thank the gentlewoman for really 
letting us know what a joy the Smithsonian is, even in front of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. Chair, I want to emphasize that the Smithsonian outreach programs 
increase connections between the Institution and targeted audiences: 
African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and new 
Americans, and provide kindergarten through college age music education 
and outreach opportunities.
  Mr. Chairman, I failed to say that when we were putting this 
together, once the African American museum was established, the museum 
personnel leadership, Dr. Lonnie Bunch, went on the road across America 
collecting artifacts from African Americans and historic families to 
put in this museum, real items of slave history and the history from 
through the years, through the centuries, and it made the museum a 
living example of the history of our time here in the United States.
  That has been done by the Smithsonian in many different groups. And 
so I would offer this article that says: ``New National Data Reveals 
the Economic Impact of Museums Is More Than Double Previous 
Estimates.''

       The American Alliance of Museums released two 
     groundbreaking reports revealing indisputable evidence that 
     museums contribute more to the United States economy than 
     previously thought and have widespread support.

  Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I would like to include in the Record this American Alliance of 
Museums report dated February 13, 2018.

         [From the American Alliance of Museums, Feb. 13, 2018]

 New National Data Reveals the Economic Impact of Museums Is More Than 
                       Double Previous Estimates

                            (By Laura Lott)

       Arlington, VA.--The American Alliance of Museums (AAM), the 
     only organization representing the entire scope of the museum 
     community, today released two groundbreaking reports 
     revealing indisputable evidence that museums contribute more 
     to the United States economy than previously thought and have 
     widespread public support that transcends political 
     affiliations and geographic locations.
       Armed with the two new reports and a wealth of data, on 
     February 27 hundreds of museum professionals will visit with 
     members of Congress and their staff to ask them to support 
     funding for vital federal agencies and tax incentives for 
     charitable donations. The Fiscal Year 2019 budget proposal 
     announced by President Trump yesterday calls for the 
     elimination of multiple agencies that support the arts and 
     humanities.
       ``Never before in the 112-year history of the Alliance have 
     we possessed such comprehensive and statistically robust 
     studies to support what we've always known,'' said Alliance 
     President and CEO Laura Lott. ``Our legislators, 
     policymakers, funders, and trustees can be confident in the 
     fact that museums are important economic engines that support 
     jobs and bring revenue to their local communities. In 
     addition, our studies show that the American public is 
     overwhelmingly supportive of museums in general, and 
     specifically supports maintaining or increasing their federal 
     funding.''


               Two Reports Reinforce the Value of Museums

       The first study, Museums as Economic Engines, reveals that 
     museums support 726,000 jobs in the United States, and 
     directly employ 372,100 people, more than double that of the 
     professional sports industry, according to the Bureau of 
     Labor Statistics. The study, conducted by Oxford Economics 
     with the support of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, shows 
     that for every $100 of economic activity created by museums, 
     an additional $220 is created in other sectors of the US 
     economy as a result of supply chain and employee expenditure 
     impacts. These impacts mean that museums contribute 
     approximately $50 billion to the US economy each year, a 
     number that's more than twice previous estimates.
       The report is also the first to show that US museums 
     generate more than $12 billion per year in tax revenue to 
     federal, state, and local governments. The museum field's 
     largest economic impact is on the leisure and hospitality 
     industry (approximately $17 billion), but it also generates 
     approximately $12 billion in the financial activities sector 
     and approximately $3 billion each in the education/health 
     services and manufacturing sectors.
       Museums provide important economic impacts to every part of 
     the nation. The top 10 states driving this impact are 
     geographically diverse and account for 57 percent of the 
     gross value added to the national economy. States with the 
     highest economic impact from the museum sector included 
     California ($6.6 billion), New York ($5.4 billion), and Texas 
     ($3.9 billion). However, those that rely most heavily on 
     museums due to their relatively higher concentration include 
     the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Wyoming, and Alaska.
       The second report, Museums & Public Opinion, examines the 
     opinions of Americans concerning museums, their educational 
     and economic value, as well as their thoughts about federal 
     funding and support for museums in their community. Conducted 
     jointly by AAM and Wilkening Consulting, the study was 
     fielded by the market research experts at Ipsos and polled 
     more than 2,000 Americans. The survey results overwhelmingly 
     demonstrate the high degree to which Americans believe in and 
     support their museums, regardless of political affiliation, 
     geographic location, and whether they visit museums or not:
       97 percent believe that museums provide valuable 
     educational experiences to their communities
       89 percent recognize the important economic contributions 
     and jobs that museums bring
       96 percent would approve of elected officials who act to 
     support museums including acting to maintain or increase 
     federal funding.
       ``The data speaks clearly: whether urban or rural, 
     conservative or liberal, or a museum-goer or not, Americans 
     treasure the museums in their communities and want elected 
     officials to support them,'' Lott said.

[[Page H6528]]

       Findings from the two reports will be discussed by leaders 
     from the Alliance and its research partners February 26 at 
     Museums Advocacy Day in Washington, DC and May 7 at the 
     Alliance's Annual Meeting & Museum Expo in Phoenix.


                         Congressional Honorees

       During Museums Advocacy Day, the Alliance will present 
     awards to legislators who have demonstrated exemplary support 
     for the nation's museums:
       Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) used her position on the 
     Senate Appropriations Committee to advocate for funding for 
     key federal agencies. She is also an original cosponsor of 
     legislation that would reauthorize the Institute of Museum 
     and Library Services.
       Representative Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) is a co-founder of 
     the Congressional STEAM Caucus, and a leader in seeking 
     funding that will help school districts provide a well-
     rounded education.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the 
Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


        Amendment No. 69 Offered by Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 69 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the Environmental Justice Small Grants Program of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the Office of 
Environmental Justice, also known as the OEJ, was established within 
the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, in 1992, in order to 
assess environmental concerns with the potential of affecting 
disadvantaged communities.
  To bring about this goal, the OEJ set in motion the Environmental 
Justice Small Grants Program in 1994. While this grants program 
initially sought to overcome environmental issues that could hurt 
underprivileged communities, it has, unfortunately, devolved into a 
platform for political activism, in addition to offering services 
typically powered by State and local governments.
  Furthermore, in recent years, the Environmental Justice Small Grants 
Program has been used for purposes entirely unrelated to the office's 
stated mission. Examples would be: funding educational programs on 
urban gardening, creating healthy environments for nail salons, or the 
so-called negative consequences of automobile dependency.
  While some of these projects may be commendable, the bulk are not 
within the scope of the constitutional responsibilities delegated to 
the Federal Government.
  Our country currently shoulders $21 trillion in debt and we should 
not be subsidizing what would otherwise be State initiatives and local 
projects. It is for these reasons that I have introduced my amendment 
to discontinue funding for the OEJ Small Grants Program. This will 
allow the EPA to refocus millions of taxpayer funds toward the Agency's 
core mission over the next decade, and I would ask my colleagues to 
support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Kustoff of Tennessee). The gentlewoman from 
Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I want my colleagues to listen closely to 
what this amendment does. It prohibits funds to support the EPA's 
Environmental Justice Small Grants Program, which, since its inception 
in 1994, has awarded funding to local and Tribal organizations working 
with communities facing environmental justice issues.
  These grants support and empower low-income communities to understand 
and address exposure to environmental harms and risks.
  If there is a problem, if there is a grant that hasn't been done 
properly, then it is Congress' responsibility to do oversight. So, in 
my opinion, there should be no Member of this body that supports 
cutting these critical funds. If there are problems, we should be 
requesting oversight.
  This is a case of David versus Goliath. With this amendment, small 
communities would be left defenseless when confronted with corporations 
that come in and sometimes cause illness due to their underlying 
pursuit of profit over human health.
  Examples of these programs supported by these grants are: a program 
to promote Baltimore residents' awareness of lead health risks and lead 
abatement services. It is important to provide education:
  Working with the residents in Puerto Rico to clean up coastal areas 
and reduce solid waste and aquatic debris. I was just recently in 
Puerto Rico watching the EPA work and clean up the debris, the 
unimaginable debris of the hurricanes that went through last year.
  Working in Lawrence, Massachusetts, in one of the poorest and most 
populated cities in New England to educate families about lead 
contamination in soil, and, yes, sometimes that means knowing what is 
in the garden, what is in the yard, what is in the playground, as 
children touch soil contaminated by lead and then touch their faces and 
their mouths. The negative effect of growing vegetables in lead-
contaminated soil can be life changing for children.
  Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would, again, just 
reiterate the fact that this grant program is not doing the job that it 
was designed to do. It is not even doing things that are related to the 
stated mission. It is a waste of taxpayer dollars, and for that, it is 
not something that we should continue funding.
  It has lost its purpose. It has lost its mission, and it just simply 
is not necessary to continue funding. When we talk about the issues 
happening in Puerto Rico or other parts of the world, we have FEMA and 
we have other avenues to deal with serious problems like what happened 
in Puerto Rico and other places in our country, and those means are 
working effectively.
  But to simply waste funds on a grant program that directly is 
involved in activities unrelated to their own mission statement, is not 
something that we should be involved in. As a result, this amendment 
has been endorsed by a number of organizations, such as: the 
Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heritage Action, Citizens Against 
Government Waste, Club for Growth, FreedomWorks, Free Market America, 
and a host of organizations who are concerned about the direction our 
country is going financially and are supportive of stopping the waste 
here.
  So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I would gently remind the gentleman from 
Georgia that Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States. It is not 
a foreign entity.
  I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Calvert), my dear friend and chairman of the committee.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman, and I must rise 
in reluctant opposition.
  I wish I could have worked with the gentleman on this amendment, but 
this amendment reaches a little too far and is inconsistent even with 
the Trump administration's position.
  This year the President requested $2 million for the Environmental 
Justice Small Grants Program which would provide financial assistance 
to low income, minority, and Tribal populations, which we deal with 
quite often.
  This amendment would prohibit EPA's ability to issue grants 
altogether, which means all of the Office of Environmental Justice 
funds would be allocated to the payroll and personnel and could result 
in the hiring of more EPA staff, and I am sure that is not your 
intention. And so there would be

[[Page H6529]]

no savings according to the CBO. Zero. No savings at all in this 
amendment. I don't believe that is your intent.
  Because the amendment would have unintended consequences, I must 
oppose the amendment.
  Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate these 
comments. What we are dealing with would simply do away with funding of 
the small grants part of this program where those funds are not being 
used according to the mission.
  Mr. Chair, I continue to ask for support from my colleagues, keeping 
in mind the multiple organizations that are supportive of this 
amendment. I ask my colleagues to support this, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman very much and I 
am glad that she emphasized the work that the Environmental Justice 
grants have done in Puerto Rico, and the fact that they are citizens of 
the United States.
  But I have seen what the Environmental Justice grants have done 
because they are small. As Mr. Calvert indicated, the administration 
recommended $2 million. These grants are small, and they help 
communities clean up. They help communities deal with violators of 
environmental rules, both in the State and Federal, mostly State, and 
gives them the ability to clean and deal with neighborhood issues. That 
is how small these grants are.
  It also has provided assistance to Environmental Justice clinics that 
can work with community organizations on how to petition for something 
that is both an eyesore and environmental damage, to rid it of it, or 
to get the entity, the corporation, the small business, whatever it is, 
to clean it up. It makes it better for all concerned.
  Mr. Chair, I would just ask and recognize that this is part of civic 
participation, and these grants should be allowed.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I just have to ask the 
question. Tragedies like the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, 
demonstrate the issues surrounding environmental justice to continue to 
persist in our country. So the question is: When did it become partisan 
to ensure children drink clean water?
  This amendment ignores the need to identify and address 
disproportionately high adverse human health and environmental effects 
on minority and low-income populations. I urge, I implore the gentleman 
from Georgia, Mr. Chair, if he suspects that there is waste in this 
program, let's do the oversight together.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and to 
stand with communities and the disenfranchised over corporations.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  1945


           Amendment No. 70 Offered by Mr. Smith of Missouri

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 70 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to pay attorney's fees pursuant to a settlement in 
     any case, in which the Federal Government is a party, that 
     arises under--
       (1) the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.);
       (2) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 
     et seq.); or
       (3) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my 
amendment, which seeks to crack down on the practice commonly known as 
sue and settle.
  When Federal agencies settle lawsuits with outside advocacy groups 
behind closed doors, the outcome is pretty much what you would expect: 
costly new regulatory burdens with taxpayers picking up the tab.
  That is exactly how sue and settle works. Federal agencies accept 
lawsuits from outside advocacy organizations and, rather than defend 
themselves, proceed to settle that lawsuit in a closed-door agreement, 
resulting in new and more costly regulations.
  It is bad enough that the taxpayer ultimately pays for these 
regulations, but under current law, it is the taxpayer footing the bill 
for attorneys' fees for these outside organizations. That is absurd.
  My amendment prevents American taxpayer dollars from being used to 
pay the legal fees of outside advocacy groups for settlements under the 
Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. 
Organizations can still sue whomever they want, but they cannot do it 
on the backs of taxpayers.
  Fortunately, we are making progress to end this practice. In the 
House, we have passed this amendment several times before, and the 
Trump administration has taken notice of our efforts. The Trump 
administration sees this practice for what it is: an abuse of our 
regulator process that must be reined in.
  The EPA announced last fall that it will no longer pay attorneys' 
fees as part of the settlement process and will ensure stakeholders 
have input and a more transparent settlement process. This amendment 
will help bolster the administration's efforts to stop this abusive 
practice.
  The Trump administration realizes that nowhere is the cost of these 
settlements more painful than in the environmental regulatory context. 
The result of these lawsuits is hundreds of new regulations and tens of 
millions--even billions--of dollars in compliance costs.
  If that isn't bad enough, as part of the agreements, agencies are 
often required to reprioritize their agendas, allocating limited 
resources to the priorities of these interest groups rather than 
priorities designated by Congress or ones that have received public and 
stakeholder input.
  The American people are tired of our unaccountable Federal 
Government, and we have the opportunity to do something about it. This 
is a necessary step to rein in overregulation and bring transparency 
back to the regulatory process.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I am a little confused, because it would 
be only when the Trump administration would decide to be a party of a 
lawsuit that this judgment would ever be used. So I would assume that 
you would trust the Trump administration to be overly judicious before 
involving itself with any suit, would you not?
  I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. I support the Trump administration, but I also 
support our duty under the Constitution to make sure we tell the 
executive what to do.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, that is why I am 
confused, because this would be the Trump administration. The gentleman 
said, if I heard him correctly, Mr. Chair, that he would expect the 
Trump administration to be very judicious in using this.

[[Page H6530]]

  So I find this amendment is extraneous. It puts the same parameters 
on attorneys' fees under the ESA, the Clean Air Act, and the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act that are already in place for attorneys' 
fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
  The Equal Access to Justice Act already caps the hourly rate of 
attorneys' fees, unless the court determines an increase in the cost of 
living or special factors such as limited availability of qualified 
attorneys for the proceedings justifies a higher fee. And it requires 
the party to be a prevailing party.
  Mr. Chairman, we don't need to add an extraneous, redundant provision 
to a bill that is already overburdened with harmful legislative riders, 
especially when I trust that the Trump administration would be very 
limited and very judicious in ever using this.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I reserve 
the balance of my time and my right to close.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte).
  Mr. GIANFORTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
  This amendment would block funds used by the agencies to pay legal 
fees under any lawsuit settlement that arises under the Clean Air Act, 
the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act.
  While the intent of these pieces of legislation was good, serial 
litigants and special interest groups have turned these laws into tools 
used to block access to our forests and our mineral resources.
  In Montana, we have a litigation problem, as many of our forest 
management projects are locked up by environmental extremists filing 
frivolous lawsuits. Agencies spend more time behind a desk and more 
resources defending their actions than they do working on our lands.
  These lawyers continue to get richer as Montana's landscape goes up 
in smoke and taxpayer funds are wasted.
  This same amendment passed the House last September, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment again.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to close.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), who is the 
subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment. Suing the government and settling has become a lucrative 
business that is supported by taxpayer dollars. The Endangered Species 
Act, for example, has become wrapped around the axle of the judicial 
system by excessive litigation.
  We are essentially paying people to sue the Federal Government. This 
needs to stop.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, the sue-and-settle practice cuts 
stakeholders and the public out of the regulatory process. It 
undermines the Article I authority we hold here in Congress.
  By restricting the payment of legal fees, we take away the incentive 
for these environmental advocacy groups to sue the Federal Government, 
and we protect public input in the rulemaking process.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This amendment is unnecessary and duplicative. The Equal Access to 
Justice Act already provides a framework for legal fees related to 
cases in which the Federal Government is a party. I find myself 
standing here as a Democrat, a person who has been resisting almost 
everything that President Trump has been trying to do in the 
environmental arena and other arenas that affect healthcare and so much 
more, but I find myself defending the Trump administration's right in 
which they are a party to participate in the Equal Access to Justice 
Act, just as I did for President Obama's administration.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to stop, take a minute, think 
about what this amendment is really doing, and agree with me that we 
should oppose this amendment. We should not stop the Federal Government 
when it is involved in cases and is a party from participating in the 
Equal Access to Justice Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri 
will be postponed.


         Amendment No. 71 Offered by Mr. Larson of Connecticut

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 71 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 148, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $100,000) (increased by $100,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to require a Federal study 
on the financial impact of the disaster known as crumbling foundations 
that is plaguing parts of the Northeast, including my home State of 
Connecticut, Massachusetts, and with further study, we believe, it 
impacts much of the northeastern region of our country.
  This amendment simply asks for the Treasury to lead a joint study 
with our Federal regulators to assess the financial impact of this 
disaster and provide recommendations to help mitigate Federal and local 
losses, and help these suffering homeowners who, through no fault of 
their own, have experienced a catastrophic disaster.
  There is no one who has worked harder on this in our State of 
Connecticut than Joe Courtney. Joe has been a leader in this, 
organizing people in both the State and local arenas, as well as our 
two United States Senators Blumenthal and Murphy.
  Joe has led the way, and I have had the fortune, along with State 
Senator Tim Larson, to travel to South Windsor, East Windsor, and 
Manchester, Connecticut, and witness the devastation and the heartache 
that these homeowners go through.
  I know, looking out and seeing Mr. Young, he will remember what 
happened in the South with the famous, or infamous, China drywall. It 
is similar to that experience, where homeowners and individuals, 
through no fault of their own, experienced catastrophic loss.
  We have been working tirelessly on this effort and feel that this 
study, in fact, will reveal the impact that it will have on homeowners, 
many of whose loans and homes have been backed by GSEs Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac, and even as we project out into the future, having Federal 
bases there where this concrete may have been used that has impacted 
the people there in a dramatic fashion.
  As I indicated, nobody knows more about this issue and has studied it 
more thoroughly than Congressman Joe Courtney from the Second 
Congressional District.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) to explain further the issue of 
crumbling foundations.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Larson for yielding and, 
again, for offering this amendment, which has been part of a number of 
initiatives that we have worked on jointly together to deal with this 
issue.
  Again, for the record, just to clarify what is going on here, a 
concrete quarry up in north central Connecticut,

[[Page H6531]]

which had been mining aggregate for foundations in homes, it turned out 
there was a material called pyrrhotite, which is an iron sulfide 
material that, over time, when it is exposed to moisture, rusts and 
cracks in a sickening fashion and results in the total collapse of home 
foundations.
  The estimate is as high as 19,000 homes have had foundations using 
material from this quarry. As the gentleman pointed out, this has also 
occurred in western Massachusetts. It goes as far north, actually, as 
Three Rivers, Quebec, because it is a strain of pyrrhotite that runs 
from Canada down through New England.
  This picture shows vividly the damage caused to a home in Coventry, 
Connecticut, where the repairs require you to lift the house, clean out 
the old foundation, pour a new foundation, and, again, lower the house 
back. It costs roughly about $200,000.
  We were able to secure a tax ruling from the Treasury Department that 
allows individuals like this homeowner in the picture to basically 
deduct those losses, which, again, is some relief.
  Frankly, there is more that we need to bring to the table. The 
gentleman's amendment would allow the Federal regulators that set up 
the rules for lending banks and institutions to get some flexibility 
for loan-to-value ratio rules that occur when there are natural 
disasters.

                              {time}  2000

  Again, in Federal natural disasters in places like Florida and Texas, 
there is some flexibility to allow homeowners to get a loan perhaps 
above the loan-to-value ratios so they can, again, basically conduct 
repairs to make their houses habitable again. This amendment will set 
up that process.
  Secretary Mnuchin, as the gentleman and I know we have met with 
personally, would be the Department that would organize this task force 
that the amendment contemplates.
  Again, it is something which the banking industry in Connecticut and 
Massachusetts has expressed a strong interest in basically allowing 
some relief for homeowners who, again, have poured their heart and soul 
into their homes to be able to recover their losses.
  I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. We had a similar 
amendment last night that was adopted by Mr. Calvert. Again, I want to 
thank the majority for their understanding on this issue.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chair, I would also like to thank 
Secretary Mnuchin again for his outstanding work, his understanding and 
empathy, and the prompt manner in which they have taken up what, as you 
can imagine for these homeowners, is just catastrophic in nature. We 
want to commend him and also the Tax Advocate as well for their 
testimony before the Ways and Means Committee on this very important 
issue.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 72 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 72 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 156, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 157, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 221, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 224, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment 
No. 72 to provide additional funding for the Native American CDFI 
Assistance Program.
  This program supports critical economic development in Native 
communities, which face significant barriers to accessing basic 
financial services and capital. For example, almost all Alaska Native 
villages in my State do not have banks and are not connected to the 
road system.
  The Native program provides financial assistance and technical 
assistance awards on a competitive basis to Native CDFIs, allowing them 
to effectively build wealth and further economic self-determines in 
Native communities.
  These mission-driven Native organizations are working to finance 
businesses, create jobs, expand and improve affordable housing options, 
and much more.
  The Native program accounts for a small portion of the fund's overall 
budget but has a significant positive impact, which includes empowering 
Alaska Natives to improve their economic well-being in my home State.
  Without my amendment, a cut to the Native program in FY 2019 would be 
especially devastating to our Nation's impoverished and underserved 
Native communities.
  I urge my colleagues to support this noncontroversial bipartisan 
amendment to restore funding for the Native program.
  My amendment, when considered with Representative  Steven Palazzo's 
CDFI amendment, would restore the program to the current enacted level 
of $16 million so the Native organizations may continue growing small 
businesses, create jobs, and promote vital economic development in 
Native communities.
  I would like to thank the Native CDFI Network and the amendment's 
cosponsors, Representative Gwen Moore, Colleen Hanabusa, and Tulsi 
Gabbard.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).
  Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for introducing this 
amendment of which I am a proud cosponsor.
  This amendment provides additional funding for the Native American 
CDFI Assistance Program, also known as NACA, which supports critical 
economic development in Native communities like mine in Hawaii, those 
in Alaska, and communities all across the country which already face 
significant barriers to accessing financial mainstream services and 
capital.
  NACA accounts for a small portion of the CDFIs, but it provides 
significant support to Native CDFIs, including Native Hawaii 
organizations in my home State of Hawaii.
  Of the $22.7 million in CDFI awards made to Hawaii since the fund was 
launched, 41 percent of total dollars awarded came from this NACA 
Program. It has funded organizations like the Council for Native 
Hawaiian Advancement, which supports Native Hawaiian communities with 
homeownership counseling and mortgage loans, small business access to 
capital, and loans to farmers and ranchers.
  While the NACA Program is unable to meet the demand by qualified 
Native CDFIs at its current funding level, a cut to NACA in FY 2019 
would be especially devastating to our Nation's impoverished and 
underserved Native communities.
  I urge my colleagues to join my colleague from Hawaii, Representative 
Colleen Hanabusa, and me to support this noncontroversial, bipartisan 
amendment to restore funding to NACA.
  The amendment, when considered with Representative Palazzo's CDFI 
amendment, would restore NACA to the current enacted level of $16 
million so that Native CDFIs may continue growing small businesses, 
creating jobs, and promoting vital economic opportunity and development 
in Native communities.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her 
comments. This is a good amendment to this bill, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  The amendment was agreed to.


  Amendment No. 73 Offered by Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 73 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I have an 
amendment at the desk.

[[Page H6532]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 156, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 221, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 224, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentlewoman 
from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Mexico.
  Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Chair, my amendment 
increases funding for community development financial institutions, 
CDFIs.
  CDFIs are critical to New Mexican communities because they provide 
financial products like loans, investments, and tax credits to 
underserved communities, including poor, rural, and Tribal areas.
  This helps New Mexican entrepreneurs obtain capital to start and grow 
small businesses. It enables pueblos to build housing, and it provides 
access to economic development opportunities for rural communities 
throughout my State.
  There are currently 19 CDFIs in New Mexico, which have received $48 
million in Federal grants since 1996. In total, CDFIs have provided 
14,700 loans worth more than $830 million for New Mexico communities, 
organizations, and individuals. On average, every dollar in CDFI 
funding can be leveraged for 12 times that amount.
  It should come as no surprise just how critical this funding is for 
the economic development of my State, which is still struggling to 
recover from the recession.
  For example, when no other lenders would give them a loan, the 
Clinica la Esperanza in the South Valley received a $31,000 loan from 
the Accion CDFI to provide much-needed primary care to residents in the 
South Valley. A few years later, the clinic received an additional 
$76,000 from Accion to move to a larger location in order to serve a 
larger client base of 3,800 patients.
  Another example of CDFI lending is Tiwa Lending Services, which 
provides loans and financial education to the Pueblo of Isleta and 
other surrounding Native American communities.
  And just last month, Clearinghouse CDFI received a $3.2 million grant 
to build affordable housing in several States, including New Mexico.
  Mr. Chairman, the evidence is clear. CDFIs have proven to be 
successful drivers of economic growth and development in underserved 
areas. They create jobs, provide American opportunity, and stimulate 
growth.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to increase funding for 
CDFIs to help spur economic development in communities throughout the 
country.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 74 Offered by Mr. Palazzo

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 74 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 156, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $17,000,000)''.
       Page 157, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 158, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $4,000,000)''.
       Page 158, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $3,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple.
  During committee markup of this bill, we were successful in adding a 
restoration of $25 million to the CDFI fund. Because of the way the 
amendment was drafted in committee, this secondary amendment is 
necessary to designate the individual funds within the CDFI account.
  The CDFI banks that this amendment seeks to assist provide essential 
financial products to underserved populations, often the poorest of the 
poor. Additionally, financial literacy education provided by CDFI banks 
is an invaluable service to our most at-risk and disadvantaged 
communities across the Nation.
  Again, this amendment is purely clerical in nature and ensures that 
the $25 million added at committee markup is equitably distributed 
between the separate CDFI funds so it can do the most good for our most 
needy.
  Mr. Chair, I ask the House to pass this amendment to ensure these 
reach their intended recipients, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I do 
not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
  I was disappointed that this bill originally cut CDFI by $59 million 
and was very supportive of the full committee amendment that Mr. 
Palazzo offered to add $25 million to the program, which passed with 
bipartisan support. This amendment simply allocates that increase among 
the various worthy programs in CDFI.
  I am particularly pleased to note that the Bank Enterprise Award 
Program and Healthy Food Financing Initiative received some of the 
funding, although I would like to point out that this increase alone 
does not bring any of the individual programs to their enacted levels 
and still leaves CDFI $34 million, or 14 percent, below the current 
level.
  I urge support of the amendment and hope that we will be able to work 
towards getting the CDFI the additional increases it needs in 
conference.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
  Seeing no other speakers, I would like to thank the chairman and 
ranking member for their support in committee for restoring the funds.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote on my amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 75 Offered by Mr. Soto

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 75 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 160, line 3, insert ``(increased by $1,000,000)'' 
     before ``shall''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Soto) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chair, my amendment would increase funding for the Tax 
Counseling for the Elderly Program by $1 million.
  For this amendment, we are not taking the $1 million from any other 
account. Rather, there is a $2.4 billion account for taxpayer services, 
and this simply adds to the carveout from that total for Tax Counseling 
for the Elderly.

                              {time}  2015

  This amendment is identical to an amendment I offered last year that 
passed this body by a voice vote, and I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment again this year.
  The Tax Counseling for the Elderly program offers free tax help for 
individuals who are aged 60 or older. Cooperative grant agreements are 
entered into between the IRS and eligible organizations to provide tax 
assistance to elderly taxpayers. These funds provided by the IRS are 
used by organizations to reimburse volunteers for their out-of-pocket 
expenses, including transportation, meals, and other expenses incurred 
by them in providing tax counseling assistance at locations convenient 
to the taxpayer.

[[Page H6533]]

  This amendment will restore funding to this program at the level that 
passed both the House last year and the Congress in the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act of 2018.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment; I thank 
the chairman for his support; and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 76 Offered by Mr. Soto

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 76 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 160, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Soto) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chair, my amendment would increase funding for the 
IRS's identity theft and refund fraud casework by $500,000. For this 
amendment, we are not taking the $500,000 from any account. Rather, 
there is a $2.4 billion account for Taxpayer Services, and this simply 
adds to the carveout from that total for the Taxpayer Advocate Services 
identity theft and refund fraud casework.
  This amendment will restore funding to this program at the level that 
passed the Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018.
  Last year, there were 597,000 tax returns with confirmed identity 
theft, resulting in $6 billion in taxpayer refunds being affected.
  Identity theft can be frustrating and confusing to victims. While 
identity thieves steal information from sources outside the tax system, 
the IRS is often the first to inform a victim that their identity has 
been stolen. The IRS is working hard to resolve identity theft cases as 
quickly as possible and has made considerable progress at closing 
backlogs; however, more work remains.
  Fighting identity theft is an ongoing battle, as identity thieves 
continue to create new ways of stealing personal information and using 
it for their gain. Identity theft cases are among the most complex 
handled by the IRS. The IRS is continually reviewing processes and 
policies to minimize instances of identity theft and to help those who 
find themselves victimized.
  We, as a Congress, should be giving the IRS the resources necessary 
to close backlogs and help our constituents as expeditiously as 
possible.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment; I thank 
the chairman for his support; and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 77 Offered by Mr. Carbajal

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 77 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 125 of title I of division B.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Carbajal) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chairman, this week President Trump's Treasury 
Secretary, Steven Mnuchin, decided that the agency will no longer 
collect information on donations to political nonprofits.
  This administration will no longer require 501(c)(4) organizations to 
disclose their donors, including groups like the National Rifle 
Association, the NRA, that operates as a nonprofit, but also spends 
millions of dollars each year on lobbying and advertising to influence 
our elections.
  This announcement comes the same week that the Department of Justice 
arrested and charged a known Russian foreign agent who had infiltrated 
the NRA, an organization that has received thousands of dollars from 
Russian nationals since 2015. The Treasury Secretary's decision this 
week only thickens the swamp by unleashing a new opportunity for dark 
money and money from foreign powers to continue to flood our upcoming 
midterm elections.
  I believe that we need more transparency in our elections, not less. 
While super PACs are currently required to disclose donors, now 
501(c)(4)s are not. If you were a donor looking to influence elections 
and wanted to hide your identity, the underlying bill is currently 
making 501(c)(4) organizations an even more attractive way to conceal 
contributions.
  There is a provision in today's appropriations package that prohibits 
the IRS--prohibits the IRS--from issuing guidance on whether an 
organization is operating exclusively for the promotion of social 
welfare purposes, as written in the IRS code for 501(c)(4) nonprofits, 
to ensure that no one is abusing our Tax Code to influence our 
elections.
  My amendment simply strikes out that provision so that the IRS may 
issue guidance differentiating which groups are truly social welfare 
organizations with a charitable mission from political organizations 
abusing our nonprofit tax laws to hide their political donors from the 
public.
  More and more, our elections are being driven by organizations that 
are receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in unreported, secret 
donations. Dark money is strangling our democracy and silencing the 
will of the American people.
  In the 2012 presidential election, dark-money groups such as these 
spent over a quarter of a billion dollars on partisan political 
advertising and other campaign activities. In 2014, we saw the greatest 
wave of secret, special-interest money ever raised in a congressional 
election.
  Moreover, in 2016, dark-money groups spent nearly 10 times what they 
did the previous cycle, totaling over $1.1 billion, and that pattern of 
undisclosed political spending continues to grow this year. These 
political nonprofit organizations are receiving tax-exempt treatment 
and are being allowed to corrupt Federal tax law meant to help social 
welfare organizations like volunteer firefighters, rotary clubs, and 
other community service groups.
  Our current election laws make it impossible to know where this money 
is coming from or if it is coming from foreign adversaries, like we saw 
recently with the NRA. This amendment is not partisan and will only 
continue to allow the IRS to identify nonprofits that are spending 
significant amounts of their money to influence our elections, 
regardless of their party affiliation.
  Mr. Chairman, at this pivotal moment in our democracy, I urge my 
colleagues who are serious about draining the swamp to take this small 
step towards increased transparency in our political process.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from 
California. We have carried this provision the past 3 years in this 
very same bill. In fact, it has been signed into law, not only by 
President Trump, but also by President Barack Obama. It has been 
bipartisan in nature.
  Retaining section 125 continues the current state of affairs as we 
know it today on this very, very sensitive issue. The IRS has limited 
resources at this time, but a lot of demands on them. Taking this 
section away and impacting this regulation that clearly everyone 
hates--we should have the IRS use their resources for the things that 
it should be intended for: resources to improve customer service, to 
implement tax reform law that we recently passed, reducing tax fraud, 
and moving ahead in this new tax season.
  Mr. Chairman, reluctantly, I have to rise in opposition and ask that 
we continue the current law as it stands today.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H6534]]

  

  Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the feedback from my colleague.
  Mr. Chair, this will not detour or take away from the efficiency of 
the focus of work and spending of resources by the IRS. This only does 
a fundamental thing, and that is provide for more disclosure and 
transparency to ensure that the American public has sunshine on who is 
spending what resources through which organizations. This amendment 
merely provides that transparency.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I'll close with this. I 
appreciate the gentleman's sentiments towards how the IRS should use 
their resources.
  Being a member of the Appropriations Committee and a member of this 
subcommittee my entire time on the full committee, I can assure you 
that the IRS is operating at a level that was not last seen since about 
2011. Their resources are tremendously limited at this time, and we 
would prefer that they focus on customer service and implementing the 
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that we recently passed.
  Mr. Chair, I'll continue to oppose the gentleman's amendment, ask the 
House to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal).
  The amendment was rejected.


          Amendment No. 78 Offered by Mr. Kustoff of Tennessee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 78 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. KUSTOFF of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 185, line 8, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increase by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 221, line 13, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 224, line 19, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. KUSTOFF of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my 
amendment to increase funding for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking 
Areas program by $5 million.
  I have had numerous conversations with law enforcement throughout my 
district, and it is crystal clear that the opioid epidemic continues to 
be one of their primary concerns. Our drug task forces in the Eighth 
Congressional District desperately need these resources, as we have 
seen a spike in narcotics trafficking along Interstate 40 in Tennessee.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that many of my colleagues are having similar 
discussions in their district, so they understand just how serious this 
issue is becoming for the safety and the security of the American 
people. It is no secret that the spread of illegal drugs throughout 
west Tennessee and across the Nation leads to higher crime rates, which 
ultimately increases the financial strain on our local, State, and 
Federal law enforcement.
  We must do more to support law enforcement in this fight. This 
amendment will provide necessary funds for additional equipment and 
man-hours to conduct and carry out lengthy investigations to arrest 
these drug traffickers. The brave men and women in uniform are working 
tirelessly on the front lines to combat the opioid epidemic, and we 
can't afford to simply sit back and watch.
  We also must think of the resources needed to battle the drug 
addiction epidemic, such as the opioid crisis. The extra funding will 
take major steps to target these high-risk areas in a front-end 
approach to preventing the spread of the opioid crisis in our 
communities. We must be proactive now, because prevention is the best 
long-term solution.
  I am a former United States attorney, and I have seen firsthand how 
much these funds can make a huge difference in forward progress. I 
believe that funding the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program 
is a good first step to supporting our law enforcement and combating 
rampant opioid epidemics.
  Law enforcement at the local, State, and Federal level have expressed 
support for this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same 
today.
  I also want to thank my colleagues, Mrs. Comstock and Mr. McKinley, 
for their hard work and support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2030

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 79 Offered by Mrs. Murphy of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 79 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mrs. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 246, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Mrs. Murphy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Mrs. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise in support of this bipartisan amendment, which I am proud to 
colead with the Congressman from California (Mr. Knight), the 
Congressman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), and the Congressman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).
  This amendment would provide additional support for two important and 
successful initiatives overseen by the U.S. Small Business 
Administration.
  First, it would increase funding for SBA Women's Business Centers by 
$600,000. This amendment builds on a successful floor amendment I 
offered to last year's bill, which boosted funding for WBCs by $1 
million.
  If our amendment is adopted, the House would provide a total of $19 
million for WBCs, a substantial funding level that I will work to 
retain when the House and the Senate meet to reconcile their respective 
bills.
  There are more than 100 Women's Business Centers located across the 
country, each operated by a local nonprofit organization that receives 
financial support from SBA and others. These WBCs provide business 
training, counseling, and mentoring geared to women, especially those 
who are socially and economically disadvantaged.
  Every WBC tailors its services to the specific needs of the community 
in which it is located, but all provide training in finance, 
management, and marketing. They also help clients utilize SBA's suite 
of capital, counseling, and contracting programs.
  My central Florida district is home to many talented entrepreneurs, 
and, yet, it currently lacks a WBC. If this amendment is adopted, it 
will increase the number of WBCs that can be established nationwide and 
increase the chances that a WBC will be established in the Orlando 
area. This would help many of my constituents start or grow their small 
businesses and, in doing so, further strengthen our local economy.
  In addition, our amendment would increase funding for SBA's Veterans 
Outreach programs by $400,000, from $12.3 million to $12.7 million.
  Each year, SBA uses these resources to serve more than 200,000 
veterans and their families, including service-disabled veterans. SBA 
provides veterans with business training and mentorship, and helps them 
obtain loans, apply for Federal contracts, and cultivate connections 
with commercial supply chains.
  My support for these investments in our veterans is rooted in the 
belief that servicemembers have fought for our Nation, and, we, as a 
Nation, must fight for them, both while they are in the military and 
once they transition to civilian life.
  Our amendment does not increase the total amount of founding 
appropriated by Congress in the bill, and it enhances support for WBCs 
and veterans programs without reducing support for any other 
priorities.

[[Page H6535]]

  I thank the Rules Committee for allowing the House to consider this 
bipartisan amendment. I respectfully ask my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 80 Offered by Mr. Polis

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 80 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 248, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment. Employee-
owned businesses are uniquely structured where the employer and the 
shareholders and the executives benefit, as well as the workers.
  There are different forms of making sure that employees can 
participate in the success and capital growth of a company. Those 
include co-ops, cooperatives; ESOPs, which stands for employee stock 
ownership plans; stock options; profit sharing. There are a number of 
ways to do it.
  But some of the key findings are that, over time, employees at 
employee-owned businesses, whether they are partially or entirely owned 
by employees, have greater success. The companies do better and the 
workers do better: higher wages; more savings for retirement; more 
sustainability; and more profitability as an enterprise, because it 
improves retention rates and employee morale.
  I think that employee-owned businesses are an important market-
oriented mechanism to reduce the wage gap between executives, 
shareholders, and workers. But it can be difficult for a business to 
transition to an employee-ownership model or a business structure that 
allows for accessing financing and capital markets to make that 
transition happen.
  That is why I am sponsoring this amendment today to encourage the 
Small Business Administration to provide technical assistance, as well 
as education and outreach about existing programs, one of which is 
called the loan guarantee program, which is available to employee-owned 
businesses.
  SBA loans are a critical resource for many small businesses, and the 
employee-owned loan guarantee program is underutilized because a lot of 
lenders don't understand the unique nature of employee-owned 
businesses, especially smaller banks.
  ESOPs can be a very compelling model, as can the other models of 
employee ownership. There are a number of successful employee-owned 
companies in the district I am honored to represent in northern 
Colorado, including New Belgium Brewing.
  SBA loans are actually a critical part of helping companies make that 
transition to employee ownership, especially for small and midsized 
enterprises.
  I encourage the adoption of my amendment to help employee-owned 
businesses access financing options that will help small businesses 
grow, and help our communities retain community, local employee 
ownership of small businesses. I encourage my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle to support this amendment to highlight the role that SBA 
can play in making employee ownership options a real-life occurrence 
for more companies and people across our country.
  Mr. Chairman, of course, there are a number of pieces of legislation, 
many of them bipartisan, under the jurisdiction of different committees 
with regard to how we can remove barriers to employee ownership in our 
economy. But this simple one before us today would simply encourage the 
SBA to provide technical assistance under current authorized, funded 
programs, to help make sure that there is a greater awareness about the 
opportunities of employee ownership, both for economic productivity as 
well as for reducing the equity and wage gap in our country.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 81 Offered by Mr. Carbajal

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 81 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee for the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), and I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 264, strike lines 13 through 18.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Carbajal) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes section 628 of the 
underlying bill prohibiting the Securities and Exchange Commission, 
SEC, from issuing rules on disclosures for corporations spending money 
to influence our elections, primarily through paid advertising.
  The Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision means that 
corporations, even foreign-controlled corporations, are now allowed to 
spend unlimited amounts of money to influence American elections.
  Publicly traded corporations can buy millions of dollars' worth of 
TV, social media, and radio ads without disclosing their political 
expenditures to their shareholders. This outside spending in our 
elections has created a greater need for Members to raise more money 
for their campaigns and less time legislating.
  This has eroded the public's faith in our institutions and is 
damaging to our democracy. Families in my district and across the 
country are concerned about paying their children's tuition or medical 
bills, not spending thousands of dollars to influence Federal 
elections. Their voices shouldn't be drowned out by millions of dollars 
of secret special-interest advertising from corporations.
  A corporation's main goal is to make a profit, not to improve the 
quality of life for all Americans. They shouldn't have a say in our 
elections without their shareholders and the public knowing about it.
  That is why we cannot muzzle the SEC's ability to issue rules 
regarding disclosures for publicly traded corporations on all their 
political expenditures. Stockholders and voters have been clear: They 
want to know the details of the political donations of the companies 
they own and give their business to. In fact, more than 1.2 million 
comments have been submitted to the SEC requesting that they require 
political disclosure by publicly traded companies. That is the largest 
number of comments on a rule in the history of the agency.
  Congress should stop standing in the way of the SEC's mission, which 
is to provide transparency to the markets and the public. This 
amendment does not infringe on a corporation's right to spend money on 
political activity. It would just allow the SEC to disclose what money 
is being spent.
  This is yet another opportunity for my Republican colleagues to 
prevent special interests from gaining even more pull in Washington and 
begin draining that swamp. This should not be a Democrat or a 
Republican issue, and it goes to the heart of our democracy and 
maintaining a government that is of, by, and for the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, since the courts have weighed in, 
Democrats have been attempting to use the securities laws to mandate 
the disclosure of

[[Page H6536]]

companies' political spending activities in order to name and shame 
companies from engaging in such free speech activity.
  Time and time again, when the issue of political disclosure has come 
up as a shareholder proposal at every company's annual proxy meeting 
where it has been proposed, it has been shot down. It has been 
defeated.
  In fact, according to Proxy Monitor, the average percentage vote in 
favor of a political disclosure shareholder proposal in 2016 was just 
23 percent support. Shareholders have repeatedly weighed in against 
requiring disclosure of this information and do not believe it is 
important in making their own investment decisions regarding that 
company.
  Our securities laws and disclosure requirements have always centered 
on the concept of materiality, as determined by the Supreme Court, 
whether an omitted fact is material by looking at ``whether there is a 
substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it 
important in deciding how to vote.''
  In fact, under the Obama administration, former SEC Chair Mary Jo 
White declined to advance a political disclosure rule, stating it was 
``not one of the priorities we are advancing.''
  Additionally, former Chair White was vocal about ensuring that 
disclosures were not causing informational overload for investors. As a 
member of the Financial Services Committee, we heard repeated--
repeated--testimony on that fact.
  This provision to prevent the SEC from issuing a political disclosure 
rule has continually been part of appropriations packages that have 
been signed into law by Presidents of both parties and should continue 
to stay as part of this package.

                              {time}  2045

  Now, earlier you heard that the mission of the SEC is to provide 
transparency. Let me read exactly what the mission of the Securities 
and Exchange Commission is:
  ``The mission of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is to 
protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and 
facilitate capital formation.''
  This simply does not fit into that tripartite mission of the 
Securities and Exchange Commission.
  Now, with that being said, nothing--and let me repeat that, nothing--
prevents companies from voluntarily reporting this information if they 
believe that it is important for them to make such disclosures or for 
their shareholders to also vote that way.
  So all companies, private and public, should remain free to do just 
that: make that decision as they decide is the best course for that 
particular company.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chairman, this is not about shaming anyone. This 
does not restrict free speech or the ability of corporations to engage 
in political activity. It only allows the SEC to require disclosure of 
corporate political spending, a little bit of transparency providing 
disclosure to the public, so that they clearly know the companies that 
they are investing their money in.
  Moreover, more than 150 large companies, including more than half of 
the companies in the S&P 100, are disclosing their political spending 
already. Investors have filed over 300 shareholder proposals since 2011 
asking companies to disclose political spending. This is all about 
transparency and protecting our democracy. We should not be scared of 
giving the public more information.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I will repeat a couple of things very 
briefly.
  All of these proxy proposals have garnered 23 percent, average, 
support, so there is not widespread support among the investors.
  And again, I will repeat that three-pronged mission that the 
Securities and Exchange Commission has: ``protect investors; maintain 
fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital 
formation.'' This particular effort does none of those things, advances 
none of those things, and that is why I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 82 Offered by Mr. Zeldin

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 82 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division B (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to enforce section 540 of Public Law 110-329 (122 Stat. 
     3688) or section 538 of Public Law 112-74 (125 Stat. 976; 6 
     U.S.C. 190 note).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Zeldin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my important 
bipartisan amendment to halt the sale and marketing of Plum Island, New 
York, by the General Services Administration.
  Situated at the gateway of the Long Island Sound, Plum Island is a 
treasure for our local community in both New York and Connecticut. As a 
critical resource for research, approximately 90 percent of the land on 
Plum Island has been sheltered from development, protecting the diverse 
ecosystem of Long Island Sound and critical habitat for migratory 
birds, marine mammals, and rare plants. With recorded history dating 
back to the 1700s, Plum Island is also an essential cultural and 
historical resource.
  Since World War II, Plum Island has been utilized as a resource 
laboratory. The facility, which has been under Federal jurisdiction 
since 1899, has since grown to become what is known today as the Plum 
Island Animal Disease Center.
  In 2005, the Department of Homeland Security, which currently has 
jurisdiction over the island, announced that the Animal Disease Center 
would be moved to a new Federal facility in Kansas. To offset the cost 
of this relocation, a law was enacted in 2008 that called for the 
private sale of Plum Island to the highest bidder.
  The traditional interagency consultation process regarding the 
disposal of Federal property was bypassed, fast-tracking the potential 
sale of this island without consulting the local community or other 
Federal agencies. This statutory mandate was also based on a false 
assumption that a sale could offset the cost of the new facility, when 
the true value of the island, including cleanup costs, still are not 
clear.
  The town of Southold, New York, has local jurisdiction over the 
island and has passed ordinances preventing any private development. 
This factor, coupled with the significant cleanup and environmental 
mitigation costs associated with closing this facility, gives Plum 
Island little to no commercial value.
  Furthermore, according to a DHS report issued in April of 2016, the 
new site in Manhattan, Kansas, is already fully paid for through a 
combination of Federal appropriations and State funding.
  Allowing for continued research, public access, and permanent 
preservation of the island is a priority shared by elected officials, 
conservation groups, and local residents on both sides of the sound.
  The GSA must stop advancing the sale of this island and stop wasting 
taxpayer money on retaining expensive real estate firms in violation of 
the will of the people and in spite of pending litigation over this 
proposed sale.
  This amendment allows Congress to use the power of the purse to stop 
the GSA from marketing or selling the island while we continue the 
fight for a permanent solution that will preserve the island for 
conservation and education.

[[Page H6537]]

  Mr. Chairman, this amendment passed the House on a bipartisan vote in 
2016 as part of Financial Services and General Government 
Appropriations. My similar stand-alone bill, the Plum Island 
Preservation Act, has also passed with unanimous support in the House 
now in two consecutive Congresses.
  Mr. Chairman, I once again urge all of my colleagues to support this 
bipartisan amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, I thank my partners from Connecticut, Rosa 
DeLauro and Joe Courtney, for once again introducing this amendment 
with me. I also thank my additional cosponsors from New York, Kathleen 
Rice, Tom Suozzi, and  John Faso. The broad range of bipartisan support 
for this effort throughout our region shows what an important gem Plum 
Island is for our environment and for our history.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 83 Offered by Mr. Palmer

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 83 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division B (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available under title IV 
     or title VIII of this Act may be used by the District of 
     Columbia government to carry out the Health Insurance 
     Requirement Amendment Act of 2018 (subtitle A of title V of 
     the Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Support Act of 2018; D.C. Bill 
     22-753).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Palmer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit funds from 
being used to carry out the District of Columbia's Health Insurance 
Requirement Amendment Act of 2018. This is essentially the District's 
version of ObamaCare's individual mandate with a few important and 
troubling distinctions.
  The mandate requires that all residents of the District of Columbia 
purchase government-sanctioned health insurance or pay what the 
District calls a ``shared responsibility payment.''
  However, the mandate goes even further by allowing D.C. authorities 
to place liens on, seize, and sell the property of their residents if 
they are unwilling or unable to pay the tax penalty.
  Let me repeat. If a D.C. resident chooses not to purchase the 
government-sanctioned health insurance plan or purchases health 
insurance that doesn't meet the District of Columbia's preferences, 
they will now have the authority to impose a tax penalty or seize and 
sell that person's assets.
  But it gets worse.
  Every plan available through the D.C. Health Link covers elective 
abortion, which means that the mandate forces individuals who don't 
wish to purchase this coverage to choose between violating their 
conscience and facing a tax penalty or, even worse, having their 
property seized.
  I am sure you will hear objections to Congress meddling in District 
of Columbia affairs, but I will remind those objectors that Article I, 
section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution vests Congress, not the D.C. 
City Council, with the authority to exercise exclusive legislation in 
all cases whatsoever regarding the District.
  When the District of Columbia makes it a priority to force the 
residents to buy insurance coverage they neither want nor need, it is 
incumbent upon Congress to exercise their constitutional authority and 
prohibit the use of funds to carry out this policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in strong opposition to 
this amendment interfering in the local affairs of the District of 
Columbia.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, you wouldn't know it from hearing the 
Member on the other side speak, but in 1973, Congress passed the 
bipartisan District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which created a locally 
elected government. According to the Home Rule Act, a central purpose 
of the act was to ``relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon 
essentially local District matters.''
  In his signing statement of the Home Rule Act, President Nixon wrote, 
``It will give the people of the District of Columbia the right . . . 
to govern themselves in local affairs. . . . `'
  Yet the bill before us would either repeal or block the District of 
Columbia from carrying out or enacting five local laws.
  I filed amendments to strike all of these undemocratic riders, but 
the Rules Committee has blocked me from offering any of them on the 
floor, even though they all complied with House rules. I have gotten 
some of these amendments off in the past, and I intend to do so again, 
because this matter has to go to the Senate as well, Mr. Chairman.
  Adding insult to injury, the Rules Committee allowed this and one 
other undemocratic amendment to be offered.
  Republicans were not satisfied with sabotaging the Affordable Care 
Act by, among other things, reducing the penalty for failure to comply 
with the individual responsibility requirement to $0 in the recently 
enacted GOP tax scam. The ACA remains standing and popular, 
nevertheless, throughout the country.
  Mr. Palmer has moved to sabotage, therefore, the District of 
Columbia's local health insurance market, too, and deny the 700,000 
Federal taxpaying Americans who live in the District of Columbia access 
to quality, affordable health insurance coverage.
  This antidemocratic healthcare amendment is offered by Mr. Palmer of 
Alabama, who doesn't live in and is not responsible to the people of 
the District of Columbia, but answers to another district. I doubt that 
Representative Palmer's constituents want him taking time from their 
business to meddle in the business of another Member's district.
  This amendment would prohibit the District from spending its own 
local funds, consisting solely of local taxes and fees, to carry out a 
local District of Columbia bill that requires individuals to maintain 
health coverage or to pay a penalty for failure to do so.
  I remind the House that three States have adopted this same approach.
  In response to Republican efforts to sabotage the ACA, the District 
of Columbia, like States across the country, decided to do what they 
could and, in our case, convened a working group that consisted of 
businesses, providers, consumers, and insurers on how to preserve 
quality, affordable coverage locally.
  In February, the working group unanimously recommended creating a 
local individual responsibility requirement--and I thought the other 
side was all about localism--and the District of Columbia Health 
Benefit Exchange Authority Executive Board unanimously supported the 
recommendation.

                              {time}  2100

  The District of Columbia Mayor then included an individual 
responsibility of requirement in her budget, and the D.C. Council 
debated and unanimously passed the Health Insurance Requirement 
Amendment Act of 2018, as required by Congress. Thus, D.C. will join 
three States in requiring residents to maintain health insurance 
coverage, and more States are considering doing the very same thing.
  I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this undemocratic, offensive, and 
harmful amendment that would reduce enrollment in the D.C. individual 
insurance market by 15 percent, and increase premiums. I ask the 
gentleman to stay out of the business of my district.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

[[Page H6538]]

  

  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chair, I want to applaud my good friend from 
Alabama, Mr. Palmer, and my colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Walker, 
for their work on this particular amendment.
  I couldn't disagree more with the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia. This is not about individual liberties. In fact, this 
amendment supports individual liberties. It keeps liens from being 
placed on property.
  Quite frankly, Congress, overwhelmingly has supported repealing the 
individual mandate. And for some city to say that they are wanting to 
implement an individual mandate, it has nothing to do with healthcare. 
It has more to do with political statements.
  And I can tell you that to have the particular initiative here in 
Washington, D.C., limit short-term health plans and, certainly, 
association health plans, it, again, is not about healthcare.
  So I would encourage an adoption of the amendment and stand for 
liberty.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the other distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker).
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment.
  In December, Congress passed historic tax reform that frees people 
from ObamaCare's erroneous individual mandate which punished lower and 
middle income families for not buying health insurance they don't want 
or cannot afford.
  Well, how does D.C. respond? The City Council has now decreed that 
all residents must buy health insurance, no matter the cost or need. 
And listen, if you refuse, not only will you be financially penalized, 
but the D.C. government can seize your personal property. What?
  The idea that a local government can force you to buy a private 
product just because of your zip code is unjust and un-American.
  Congress, which has direct oversight of D.C., cannot allow the 
District to ignore Federal law and use politics to punish their 
residents.
  I urge my colleagues to support the measure.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Curtis). The gentleman from Alabama has 1 
minute remaining.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen from North Carolina, 
Mr. Meadows and Mr. Walker, for their support of this amendment. And I 
would just like to point out, as Mr. Meadows was pointing out, this is 
really about defending rights.
  This amendment prohibits the District of Columbia Council from 
imposing on individual property rights. It denies people the option to 
buy less expensive health insurance and insurance that they want and 
need.
  I would like to also point out that in ObamaCare, even there, there 
was no force imposed on people to buy health insurance. They could pay 
the penalty, or they could apply for a waiver with the IRS and, 
literally, millions did that. At no time did ObamaCare pose a threat to 
people's property rights, as this amendment does.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to stand up for the rights of 
the citizens of the District of Columbia to protect their property 
rights and support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 84 Offered by Mr. Meadows

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 84 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division B (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to carry out section 1334 of the Patient Protection 
     and Affordable Care Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chair, before I get into my amendment, I want to 
thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the entire staff for not 
only a very thoughtful bill that really requires very few amendments, 
but really working with Members of all different ideological stripes in 
our conference. And I look forward to being able to support this when 
it comes up for a vote tomorrow.
  My amendment prohibits funds from being used by the Office of 
Personnel Management, better known as OPM, to administer the 
ObamaCare's multistate program.
  ObamaCare required OPM to contract with health insurers to make 
multistate plans available to consumers in all the States, and D.C., by 
2017.
  Now, there is only one problem with that. There is only one State 
participating. And yet, here we continue to fund it.
  The multistate plan program has failed to meet its statutory 
requirements. It has failed to generate competition in the healthcare 
marketplace. And it has failed to lower health insurance premiums.
  According to OPM, the government has spent $53 million on 
administrative costs for this failed program. The evidence is clear: 
This program doesn't work and it is a waste of taxpayer dollars.
  In fact, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on 
Taxation said eliminating funding for this plan will not affect the 
levels of competition or premiums in the insurance markets, nor would 
it affect any ObamaCare subsidies.
  So my amendment does not take funds away from OPM. It leaves more 
money for OPM to continue its other mission-critical programs without 
having to waste the time and resources on a poorly-functioning 
multistate plan program.
  I have got letters from the OPM, Office of Personnel Management, who 
administers the plan, supporting the elimination of this program. I 
also have a letter from the National Active and Retired Federal 
Employees Association, better known as NARFE, who represent the 
interests of more than 5 million Federal employees and retirees and 
their survivors, supporting the elimination of this program.
  So finally, this program is widely viewed by analysts on the both the 
left and the right as either a de facto public option or a plausible 
foundation for a future public option.
  The House should vote overwhelmingly to do away with this, and I urge 
my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, to do so.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. This amendment is another in a long line of attacks on 
the Affordable Care Act. It is, unfortunately, an example of 
Republicans turning to the appropriations process, instead of working 
through the appropriate channels via the authorization committees.
  Weighing down bills with partisan riders does nothing but make it 
more difficult to enact these spending bills, especially in a timely 
manner.
  Turning to the substance of the amendment, our constituents would be 
better served if we focused our efforts on extending quality, 
affordable coverage to more individuals, not eliminating plans.
  Healthcare is an essential right, and a healthy America is a more 
productive, safer, and better place to call home. I suggest my 
colleagues vote ``no'' on the Meadows amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman opposite with his 
articulation of opposition; but I find it

[[Page H6539]]

interesting because the last time I checked, he is not from Arkansas, 
which is the only State that actually is benefiting from this. And yet, 
his State, my State, and every other State is paying for this for the 
benefit. And I would use that word very liberally, because it is not 
really benefiting them. They just keep it there. It is not lowering 
premiums in Arkansas.
  So at what time do we look at a failed Federal program and say enough 
is enough? I think that that day is today, and I urge all my colleagues 
to support this amendment.
  I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership. I urge a vote in 
support of this particular amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 85 Offered by Mr. Rothfus

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 85 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division B (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available under title IV 
     or title VIII of this Act may be used by the District of 
     Columbia government to carry out section 47-4471, D.C. 
     Official Code, with respect to the liability of a taxpayer 
     under section 47-5108, D.C. Official Code (as added by 
     subtitle A of title V of the Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Support 
     Act of 2018; D.C. Bill 22-753).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment, 
a narrow amendment which simply prohibits any funds from going toward 
the District of Columbia from seizing property of citizens not in 
compliance with the District's individual healthcare mandate. It is a 
narrower amendment than the one we just debated.
  My amendment does not take away the mandate. It simply says one of 
the remedies cannot be the seizure of property if an individual does 
not comply with the mandate to buy health insurance.
  The individual mandate is, of course, controversial. Even Barack 
Obama opposed it when he was running in 2008. In one of the debates in 
the 2008 primary, then Senator and Presidential candidate Obama said: 
``A mandate means that in some fashion, everybody will be forced to buy 
health insurance. . . . But I believe,'' then candidate Obama said, 
``the problem is not that folks are trying to avoid getting healthcare. 
The problem is they can't afford it.''
  He separately said:

       If the mandate was the solution, we could try to solve 
     homelessness by mandating that everyone buy a house. The 
     reason why they don't have the house is they don't have the 
     money. So our focus has been on reducing costs and making it 
     available.

  Regardless of what anyone on either side of the aisle thinks about a 
requirement to buy health insurance, it seems ill-advised and unjust to 
take away property from people that cannot even afford insurance.
  I have to imagine that this was an oversight in writing the law, 
because surely no legislators could have intended such a harsh result.
  I would note, Mr. Chairman, that in 2015, 6,902 residents of the 
District of Columbia were forced to pay the mandate penalty. Seventy-
five percent of them made less than $50,000.
  I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in 
supporting this commonsense measure, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in strong opposition to yet 
another amendment that interferes with another Member's district, 
indicating that there is more than one Member in this body that does 
not have enough to do at home.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.

                              {time}  2115

  Ms. NORTON. A few minutes ago, we debated an amendment offered by 
Representative Gary Palmer of Alabama that would prohibit the District 
from spending its own local funds, consisting solely of taxes and fees, 
to carry out a local D.C. bill, the Health Insurance Requirement 
Amendment Act of 2018, that requires individuals to maintain health 
insurance coverage or pay a tax penalty for failure to do so.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  July 18, 2018, on page H6539, the following appeared: A few 
minutes ago, we debated an amendment offered by Representative 
Gary Palmer of Alabama that would prohibit the District from 
spending its own local funds,
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: Ms. NORTON. A few 
minutes ago, we debated an amendment offered by Representative 
Gary Palmer of Alabama that would prohibit the District from 
spending its own local funds,


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  This amendment before us now offered by this Member, Mr. Rothfus of 
Pennsylvania, seeks to weaken the coverage requirement by prohibiting 
D.C. from spending its local funds to carry out a method of tax 
collection in existing D.C. law to enforce the penalty.
  Mr. Rothfus has plenty to do representing his own district, but is 
now venturing far afield into a district represented by another Member 
of the House of Representatives.
  In particular, D.C. would be prohibited from using its local funds to 
collect the tax penalty by distraint, or the seizure of property to 
obtain payment, for failure to pay.
  The District is not unique in authorizing distraint, and it is seldom 
used. I can't think of when it has been used. The seizure of property 
to settle tax debt is standard practice for the Federal Government, 
States, and cities across the country, including, would you believe, 
Representative Rothfus' State of Pennsylvania.
  Under title 53 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, section 
16031, Pennsylvania jurisdictions are allowed to collect taxes by 
distraint. I wonder if the sponsor has asked his own legislature to 
repeal that statute. Let him start at home before he tries to repeal 
something passed unanimously by the council of the District of 
Columbia.
  It is true that the Affordable Care Act prohibited the Internal 
Revenue Service from seizing property to collect the individual 
responsibility requirement tax penalty, although it did authorize the 
IRS to withhold the penalty amount from future tax refunds, which 
amounts to the very same thing. However, each State and the District is 
free to authorize distraint to collect the local individual 
responsibility requirement tax penalty.
  However, it is important to note, and I emphasize, that the District 
rarely seizes property to collect taxes owed. When it does, it does so 
only as a last resort. I can't think of when this has even happened. If 
a payment plan or settlement could not be established with a taxpayer, 
the District would first turn to remedies like withholding tax refunds 
or garnishing wages, not seizing a house or a car.
  I am sure that is what happens in Mr. Rothfus' State of Pennsylvania 
as well.
  I will not tolerate Republicans, this Member or any other, using the 
District of Columbia to score points with opponents of the ACA. They 
haven't been able to beat the ACA.
  This amendment is one of several that constitute the most significant 
abuse of Federal power over the District of Columbia since Republicans 
took control in 2011.
  So the ACA remains popular throughout the United States. They just 
can't bear that. So Mr. Rothfus moves on to the District, to see if he 
can do to the District what his side has not been able to do in the 
country for the ACA.
  We found greater respect for democratic self-rule in the Senate in 
getting such riders removed. We intend to do so again.
  Mr. Chair, I say to the gentleman, mind your own business.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this abuse of power, and I 
urge a ``no'' vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the gentlewoman would 
realize that this amendment scores points for the 75 percent of the 
people who were subject to the penalty who made less than $50,000 a 
year. That is what happens when we have the mandate.

[[Page H6540]]

  And it is Federal policy now, Federal policy, that holds that people 
should not be punished if they can't afford to purchase health 
insurance. They certainly shouldn't be punished by having their 
property seized.
  And if it is only a few people, as the gentlewoman says, I would 
wonder why she is opposed to this amendment.
  This is the Federal city. It is Federal policy that people should not 
be so punished.
  President Obama, when he was running for President in 2008, was 
pretty clear. He knew what would happen. He observed what was going on 
with the Massachusetts mandate. He said:

       Now, Massachusetts has a mandate right now. They have 
     exempted 20 percent of the uninsured because they've 
     concluded that that 20 percent can't afford it. In some 
     cases, there are people who are paying fines and still can't 
     afford it. So now they are worse off than they were. They 
     don't have health insurance and they're paying a fine. And in 
     order for you to force people to get health insurance, you 
     have to have a very harsh, stiff penalty.

  President Obama understood that. He understood, as a candidate, that 
it would be wrong to seize property.
  Again, when you look at the people who were being levied the penalty 
in 2015, when the ACA had a penalty, 75 percent of the people who paid 
the penalty in the District of Columbia made less than $50,000 a year.
  Again, President Obama as a candidate:

       I think it is important to recognize that, if you are going 
     to mandate the purchase of insurance and it is not 
     affordable, then there is going to have to be some 
     enforcement mechanism that the government uses. It may charge 
     people who don't already have healthcare fines or have to 
     take it out of their paychecks.

  And candidate Obama said:

       And that, I don't think, is helping people without health 
     insurance.

  Again, he liked to keep on going and talking about Massachusetts. 
What is happening in Massachusetts, then-candidate Obama said:

       There are articles being written about it which are that 
     folks are paying fines that don't have healthcare. They would 
     rather go ahead and take the fine, because they cannot afford 
     coverage.

  Mr. Chairman, this is for the folks who may not be able to afford it, 
people making less than $50,000 a year. They shouldn't have their 
property seized.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to accept this commonsense, narrow 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 86 will not be offered.


                Amendment No. 87 Offered by Mr. McHenry

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 87 
printed in House Report 115-830.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division B (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the United States Postal Service to--
       (1) implement any approach in the report of the Office of 
     Inspector General of the Postal Service on May 21, 2015, 
     entitled ``The Road Ahead for Postal Financial Services''; or
       (2) carry out any pilot project pursuant to the report.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It would bar 
the United States Postal Service from expanding on its current 
offerings of financial services and banking products.
  I think it is important that the Postal Service focus on its core 
business of delivering the mail. While the idea of postal banking is 
nothing new, it is still a terrible idea.
  In 2015, the inspector general for the Postal Service took the highly 
unusual step in proposing that the Postal Service should expand its 
banking services in areas like prepaid cards, savings products, and 
money orders. Since then, postal banking advocates have used the report 
to argue that the Postal Service has the authority to offer more 
banking products, all without congressional oversight or consent. 
Recent reports indicate that these efforts include using a pilot 
program to implement this awful idea. That is the reason why I am 
offering my amendment.
  To make things even worse, rather than proposing the idea 
legislatively, the current strategy of those advocating for postal 
banking is to institute the program via behind-the-scenes negotiation 
between government bureaucrats and liberal special interest groups.
  This amendment draws a clear, bright line that says that no taxpayer 
money shall be used to subsidize these quiet attempts at making postal 
banking a reality.
  Proponents of postal banking argue that it would help the under-
banked in this country, but the simple fact is that socialized banking 
is not the answer.
  Instead, we have to focus on working together in a bipartisan way 
around financial innovation as the pathway toward financial inclusion.
  Postal banking is a giant step backward. The Postal Service, as I 
said, should focus on its core mission of delivering our mail.
  Postal banking would simply create yet another government program 
that fails to solve the underlying problem.
  Further, if Congress does not step in and stop this now, we endanger 
our small community banks and credit unions that are already in 
trouble, while at the same time putting an additional burden on the 
American taxpayer, who will be stuck footing the bill for this horrible 
idea.
  This amendment protects the American taxpayers from being forced to 
finance a terrible idea called postal banking. Its passage would also 
maintain the role of Congress in determining the fate of the Postal 
Service and postal banking, not government bureaucrats and interest 
groups.
  Mr. Chair, I urge support of my amendment, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, sadly, the provisions contained in this 
amendment would block the Postal Service from running a pilot program 
designed to improve operations and save taxpayers money, like allowing 
travelers to submit passport applications at post offices across the 
country. It would severely limit the potential of one of our most 
essential, constitutionally mandated government agencies, and hurt our 
communities and our citizens in the process.
  I represent not only countless letter carriers, but thousands of 
Ohioans who rely on the Postal Service for timely delivery of their 
Social Security checks, electric bills, and birthday cards from loved 
ones.
  Expanding the services provided at our Nation's post offices would 
achieve two ends: supporting a great Federal job provider, and helping 
our communities and citizens at the same time.
  At a time when banks and other institutions are abandoning inner 
cities and rural communities, in my district alone, post offices 
present a perfect medium to collocate, including with traditional banks 
or credit unions.
  For example, in my home State, 18.6 percent of Cleveland households 
have no checking or savings account, and 24.1 percent of households are 
under-banked, forced to use costly payday and auto title firms or 
currency exchange stores to cash paychecks or make consumer loans. More 
than 35 percent of Cleveland's 389,000 residents live below the Federal 
poverty line.
  Many post offices are located in bank deserts. Fifty-nine percent of 
post offices are in ZIP Codes with either zero banks or only one bank 
branch.
  By giving the Postal Service the opportunity to serve our communities 
in

[[Page H6541]]

a more expansive capacity, we could also put the Postal Service back on 
the right track financially, bring back hundreds of American jobs, and, 
in so doing, restore faith in one of our most fundamental government 
services.
  The Postal Service is already providing an impressive, expansive, and 
affordable service to all the American people--and by the American 
people, by the way. I am fighting in Congress to support the 
hardworking employees of the Postal Service and our citizens, 
especially in underserved communities across not just my district, but 
our country.
  It is really horrendous to go into communities that have no financial 
services, where people are being ripped off every day.
  Mr. Chair, I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort and 
oppose this misguided amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Connolly), a very able and intelligent Congressman.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time we have 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment which would limit the Postal Service's ability to offer 
products and services on a pilot basis that could help the Postal 
Service find its way to financial stability.
  At a time when the Postal Service is bleeding red ink, this bill 
takes away existing revenue and potential revenue. In fiscal year 2017, 
the Postal Service reported a loss of $2.7 billion, marking the 11th 
straight year in the red.
  And just coincidentally, it got in the red because Congress, in 2006, 
restricted what the Postal Service could do. Well, it really worked 
well: 11 years of red ink, putting the Postal Service in insolvency, 
technically. To address the Postal Service's financial situation, the 
Postal Service needs financial relief, not further restrictions.
  H.R. 6076, the Postal Reform Act of 2018, which I introduced with the 
gentleman from North Carolina, Congressman Mark Meadows, on a 
bipartisan basis, passed the authorizing committee unanimously, and we 
are hoping to take it to the floor, and that is where it belongs, in an 
authorization bill, not as a rider on the appropriations bill.
  This bill even addresses issues raised by the gentleman from North 
Carolina's amendment. Under the Postal Reform Act, the Postal Service 
would have to limit any new nonpostal products and services to only 
those provided to State, local, and Tribal governments and Federal 
agencies. The bill would preserve existing nonpostal products and 
services.
  However, this amendment is much more restrictive than that. This 
amendment includes a blanket prohibition that would prevent the Postal 
Service from implementing any other recommendations from a May 2015 
Postal Service Inspector General Report, including improving its 
existing range of financial services, such as money orders.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Ranking Member Lowey, 
I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair, this amendment, as I said, includes blanket 
prohibitions that would prevent the Postal Service from implementing 
the reports and recommendations of the 2015 Postal Service Inspector 
General Report, including improving its existing range of financial 
services, such as money orders.
  I might add, the assertions that have been made that there has been 
no congressional oversight, that is not true. My committee, the 
Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has had numerous hearings on 
the Postal Service, numerous briefings with the Postmaster General and 
her predecessor and his predecessor.
  We have marked up numerous bills. We finally got one we could agree 
on, and it is pending. That is how this should be done--not piecemeal, 
not in a way that further constrains and circumscribes the Postal 
Service that can only lead to more red ink.
  We are trying to save the Postal Service, which is mandated in the 
Constitution. It has a requirement for universal service that private 
sector firms do not. And we have allowed some pilot programs to see if 
they can work. They are not a threat to financial institutions.
  So we are fixing a problem here that does not really exist, and we 
are going to do real harm to a Postal Service we have already harmed 
with the 2006 legislation Congress passed in a lame-duck session in the 
name of reform, and it backfired. It blew up, and it has done 
incalculable damage which we are now trying to repair to the Postal 
Service.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this unwarranted intrusion 
into the prerogatives of the authorizing committee that is doing its 
job and has a bipartisan bill that passed our committee unanimously, 
which is a remarkable statement for the Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee.
  We ought not to be legislating on an appropriations bill in this way 
with respect to the Postal Service. It deserves better, our consumers 
deserve better, Postal Service customers deserve better, and we can do 
better.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the 
American Bankers Association, the Credit Union National Association, 
the Independent Community Bankers of America, and the National 
Association of Federally Insured Credit Unions in support of this 
amendment.

                                                    July 18, 2018.
       Dear Congressman Patrick McHenry: On behalf of our 
     organizations and the Americans we represent, we write to 
     express support of your Amendment to Division B, within the 
     Financial Services and General Government section of H.R. 
     6147. This amendment would prohibit the use of any taxpayer 
     funds for postal banking and financial services and prohibit 
     the creation of any new pilot program that would expand this 
     business practice through collective bargaining.
       While the USPS serves an important role in delivering mail 
     and packages, we are concerned about expanding the Postal 
     Service's primary role and allowing the government to compete 
     with the private sector. This would include lower fees, 
     subsidized services and even competing based on real estate 
     and office location.
       Consideration of expanding postal operations to engage in 
     banking and financial services is not a new concept. It has 
     been touted as a solution to help stabilize the US Postal 
     Service's financial practices. The cost alone to hire 
     additional workers and retrain existing employees to offer 
     banking products would further undermine the Postal Service's 
     budgetary issues.
       Additionally, we have reservations about the ability of the 
     Postal Service to safeguard customers' identities and 
     information such as bank accounts and passwords. Regardless 
     of the federal agency, the government has shown it can be 
     slow to react to cyber threats, allowing bad actors to access 
     citizens' private records.
       It is clear the US Postal Service's financial health is 
     troubling. Expanding USPS's operations to compete with 
     private sector banks and credit unions is not the answer. We, 
     the undersigned organizations, support your amendment to H.R. 
     6147 and encourage its inclusion in the final appropriations 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
         Grover G. Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform; 
           Tim Chapman, Executive Director, Heritage Action; Tom 
           Schatz, President, Council for Citizens Against 
           Government Waste; Adam Brandon, President, 
           FreedomWorks; Brandon Arnold, Executive Vice President, 
           National Taxpayers Union; Kevin Kosar, Vice President 
           of Policy, R Street Institute; Andrew F. Quinlan, 
           President, Center for Freedom and Prosperity; Iain 
           Murray, Vice President for Strategy and Sr. Fellow, 
           Competitive Enterprise Institute.


                      Who supports the amendment?

       American Bankers Association, Americans for Tax Reform, 
     Center for Freedom and Prosperity, Citizens Against 
     Government Waste, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Credit 
     Union National Association, Freedom Works, Heritage Action, 
     Independent Community Bankers of American, National 
     Association of Federally Insured Credit Unions, National 
     Taxpayers Union, R Street Institute.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I also include in the Record a letter on 
behalf of Americans for Tax Reform, Heritage Action for America, 
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, FreedomWorks, National 
Taxpayer Union, R Street, and the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, 
along with the Competitive Enterprise Institute in support of this 
amendment.


[[Page H6542]]


                                                    July 17, 2018.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf of 
     the members of the American Bankers Association, the Credit 
     Union National Association, the Independent Community Bankers 
     of America, and the National Association of Federally Insured 
     Credit Unions, I write to urge the adoption of Congressman 
     Patrick McHenry's amendment to the Financial Services and 
     General Government (FSGG) appropriations bill to prohibit the 
     U.S. Postal Service from providing banking services.
       Financial institutions are strongly supportive of the 
     Postal Service, as one of the largest mailers of any industry 
     group in America. Physical mail remains an important 
     communications channel for banks and credit unions. Financial 
     institutions of all sizes use the mail to communicate with 
     current and potential customers, to send statements and 
     receive payments, and to market new products and services to 
     their customers. Financial companies are also a vital revenue 
     source for the Postal Service, generating billions of dollars 
     of annual revenue that supports postal infrastructure. For 
     these reasons, our members are committed to identifying long-
     term solutions to ensure an efficient, self-sustaining, and 
     affordable U.S. postal system.
       Postal banking is not one of those solutions. Although 
     there have been a number of proposals over the past few years 
     to turn the U.S. Postal Service into the world's largest 
     shadow banking system, we are very concerned that allowing 
     the U.S. Postal Service to provide banking services will be 
     beyond the Postal Service's core competencies, will raise a 
     number of serious regulatory and consumer protection 
     questions, and will present significant competitive issues 
     for private sector entities. Congress should encourage the 
     Postal Service to focus on its core business of physical mail 
     delivery, and not be distracted by expanding the mission to 
     businesses outside of the Postal Service's area of expertise.
       Most significantly, postal banking does not address the 
     Postal Service's financial challenges, and may well make them 
     worse. The U.S. Postal Service agrees. The Postal Service has 
     strongly argued against authority to provide banking 
     services, noting that providing these products would almost 
     certainly cause it to lose money:
       ``The Postal Service's mission is to provide the American 
     public with trusted, affordable, universal mail service. Our 
     core function is delivery, not banking . . . Profit margins 
     on these financial services businesses across the industry 
     are very low . . . so even if we achieved $1 billion in 
     revenue and executed well, our cash position would only 
     increase by an estimated $100-200 million, which will not 
     materially change our financial condition--we need to focus 
     on the core delivery business.''
       The Postal Service went on to note that to the extent that 
     more affordable pricing of financial services is a primary 
     goal of postal banking efforts, ``[m]ore affordable appears 
     to mean at a lower price level than the free market provides 
     today . . . Since established financial services firms make a 
     slim margin on revenue . . . it seems unlikely that there is 
     any significant room to lower prices without incurring a 
     loss, and at a minimum, a lower profit margin.''
       No doubt, postal reform is a serious topic that Congress 
     must confront. We encourage Congress to enact legislation 
     that would reduce costs and increase efficiencies to put the 
     U.S. Postal Service on a sound and sustainable financial path 
     over the long run, but the provision of banking services is 
     not an acceptable solution. We look forward to continuing to 
     work with you on postal reform efforts in the coming months, 
     but urge you to support Congressman McHenry's amendment to 
     the FSGG appropriations bill to ban the Postal Service from 
     providing banking services when it is on the House Floor this 
     week.
           Sincerely,
       American Bankers Association, Credit Union National 
     Association, Independent Community Bankers of America, 
     National Association of Federally Insured Credit Unions.

  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that the Postal Service, 
as my colleagues across the aisle say, is a constitutional function. It 
is really important that the Postal Service do its mission of 
delivering the mail.
  What we don't think we should do is give a government bureau, through 
a nonlegislative means, the right to expand into nonessential services 
for a part of the government that is bleeding money. An institution 
that cannot balance its own books should not be getting into the 
offering of credit or the movement of money and funds.
  While I am in favor of postal reform, and while I support my letter 
carriers, I do not favor postal banking. I think it is important for 
this Congress to put a note down that we are in opposition to that, and 
that is why I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, as the designee of Ranking Member Lowey, I 
move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I would just like to respond to the gentleman. 
The offer of this amendment should never be on an appropriation bill. 
This is one of these extraneous riders that belongs in other bills, and 
it is very damaging to the future of communities across this country, 
thousands of which lack banking services and financial services of any 
kind.
  What we are talking about here is something simple. It is something 
very simple: a pilot program. We are not saying this is going to happen 
all over the United States. This gentleman wants to deny the ability of 
communities to have any kind of normal financial service where they 
have been redlined by the very letters that the gentleman just asked to 
be placed in the Record. Those very institutions abandoned the 
communities that we are seeking to serve.
  I am really disappointed that the gentleman would want people to be 
subjected to usurious interest rates or to a lack of any kind of 
financial service, even paying your electric bill, for heaven's sake.
  So, for two reasons, I ask my colleagues to vote against the 
gentleman's amendment: number one, it doesn't belong in this bill; and 
number two, it does a great disservice to the people of this country. 
They have a right to better service.
  The Postal Service is coast to coast. It is audited, it is properly 
staffed, and it is universal. Whether you are poor or whether you are 
rich in this country, you have a right. You have a right to be treated 
fairly by the institutions that this Nation manages.
  Mr. Chair, I want to congratulate those who work for our great Postal 
Service. I ask that the gentleman's amendment be defeated, and let us 
support what is in the Constitution of the United States, which is 
respect for the Postal Service, coast to coast to every citizen.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina.
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina will be postponed.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Ohio 
seek recognition?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, you know, if they would operate these 
microphones for the Democrats as well as they operate them for the 
Republicans, maybe we could be heard on this floor, and especially for 
the women Democrats, I might add.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman's request for a recorded vote has 
been postponed.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair, before we can conclude our debate, I 
wanted to thank Chairman Calvert and Ranking Betty McCollum of the 
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee for their 
work; and also the Financial Services and General Government 
Subcommittee Chairman  Tom Graves and Ranking Member  Mike Quigley for 
the great job they did; and for the men and women behind them that make 
up the professional and personal staff of the Appropriations Committee.
  As of today, all 12 appropriations bills have been released. With the 
passage of this legislation, the full House will have halfway done all 
of our bills on the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, we continue our momentum by passing H.R. 6147. I guess 
that will be tomorrow, and I urge support of the bill.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H6543]]

  



                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of Georgia). Pursuant to clause 6 of 
rule XVIII, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in 
House Report 115-830 on which further proceedings were postponed, in 
the following order:
  Amendment No. 43 by Mr. Mullin of Oklahoma.
  Amendment No. 44 by Mr. Mullin of Oklahoma.
  Amendment No. 46 by Mrs. McMorris Rodgers of Washington.
  Amendment No. 48 by Mr. Lamborn of Colorado.
  Amendment No. 49 by Mr. Lamborn of Colorado.
  Amendment No. 50 by Mr. Goodlatte of Virginia.
  Amendment No. 51 by Mr. Gallego of Arizona.
  Amendment No. 60 by Mr. Pearce of New Mexico.
  Amendment No. 62 by Mr. Pearce of New Mexico.
  Amendment No. 63 by Mr. Gosar of Arizona.
  Amendment No. 69 by Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia.
  Amendment No. 70 by Mr. Smith of Missouri.
  Amendment No. 81 by Mr. Carbajal of California.
  Amendment No. 83 by Mr. Palmer of Alabama.
  Amendment No. 84 by Mr. Meadows of North Carolina.
  Amendment No. 85 by Mr. Rothfus of Pennsylvania.
  Amendment No. 87 by Mr. McHenry of North Carolina.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Mullin

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Mullin) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 215, 
noes 194, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 346]

                               AYES--215

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     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
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     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--194

     Adams
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Faso
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Mast
     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
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reichert
     Rooney, Francis
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roskam
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Stefanik
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Aguilar
     Bass
     Black
     Blackburn
     Cardenas
     DeSantis
     Gaetz
     Hanabusa
     Hoyer
     Paulsen
     Peters
     Peterson
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Shea-Porter
     Shuster
     Sinema
     Speier
     Walz

                              {time}  2203

  Mr. COFFMAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 346.
  Stated against:
  Mr. AGUILAR. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 346.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 346.
  Miss RICE of New York. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 346.
  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 346.


                 Amendment No. 44 Offered by Mr. Mullin

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Mullin) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 215, 
noes 199, not voting 14, as follows:

[[Page H6544]]

  


                             [Roll No. 347]

                               AYES--215

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     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
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     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
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     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--199

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amodei
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bergman
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Faso
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reed
     Rice (NY)
     Rooney, Francis
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roskam
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce (CA)
     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
     Stefanik
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bass
     Black
     Blackburn
     Cardenas
     DeSantis
     Gaetz
     Hanabusa
     Hoyer
     Joyce (OH)
     Peterson
     Richmond
     Shuster
     Speier
     Walz


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2207

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


            Amendment No. 56 Offered by Ms. McMorris Rodgers

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. McMorris Rodgers) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 227, 
noes 185, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 348]

                               AYES--227

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cloud
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     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
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Waters, Maxine
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--185

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard

[[Page H6545]]


     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     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
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bass
     Black
     Blackburn
     Cardenas
     DeSantis
     Gaetz
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hoyer
     Peterson
     Richmond
     Scott, David
     Shuster
     Speier
     Walz


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2210

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                AMENDMENT NO. 48 OFFERED BY MR. LAMBORN

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Lamborn) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213, 
noes 202, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 349]

                               AYES--213

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (IN)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cloud
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     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
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     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
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     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--202

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

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bass
     Black
     Blackburn
     Cardenas
     DeSantis
     Gaetz
     Hanabusa
     Hoyer
     Peterson
     Richmond
     Shuster
     Speier
     Walz


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2213

  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California changed her vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                AMENDMENT NO. 49 OFFERED BY MR. LAMBORN

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Lamborn) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213, 
noes 201, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 350]

                               AYES--213

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (IN)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cloud
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock

[[Page H6546]]


     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     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
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     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--201

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

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bass
     Black
     Blackburn
     Cardenas
     DeSantis
     Gaetz
     Hanabusa
     Hoyer
     Palazzo
     Peterson
     Richmond
     Shuster
     Speier
     Walz


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2216

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 50 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Goodlatte) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213, 
noes 202, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 351]

                               AYES--213

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     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
     Jones
     Jordan
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--202

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Comstock
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Faso
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harris
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Joyce (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton

[[Page H6547]]


     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reed
     Rice (NY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Stefanik
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bass
     Black
     Blackburn
     Cardenas
     DeSantis
     Gaetz
     Hanabusa
     Hoyer
     Peterson
     Richmond
     Shuster
     Speier
     Walz


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2219

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 51 Offered by Mr. Gallego

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Gallego) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 203, 
noes 212, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 352]

                               AYES--203

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

                               NOES--212

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barragan
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     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)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     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
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     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

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bass
     Black
     Blackburn
     Cardenas
     DeSantis
     Gaetz
     Hanabusa
     Hoyer
     Peterson
     Richmond
     Shuster
     Speier
     Walz


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2222

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 60 Offered by Mr. Pearce

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Mr. Pearce) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206, 
noes 209, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 353]

                               AYES--206

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (IN)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cloud
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Foxx
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)

[[Page H6548]]


     King (IA)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     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--209

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

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bass
     Black
     Blackburn
     Cardenas
     DeSantis
     Gaetz
     Hanabusa
     Hoyer
     Peterson
     Richmond
     Shuster
     Speier
     Walz


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2225

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 62 Offered by Mr. Pearce

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Mr. Pearce) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216, 
noes 199, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 354]

                               AYES--216

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (IN)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cloud
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     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--199

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     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
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Faso
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Heck
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Mast
     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
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Stefanik
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko

[[Page H6549]]


     Torres
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bass
     Black
     Blackburn
     Cardenas
     DeSantis
     Gaetz
     Hanabusa
     Hoyer
     Peterson
     Richmond
     Shuster
     Speier
     Walz


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2227

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 63 Offered by Mr. Gosar

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Gosar) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193, 
noes 220, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 355]

                               AYES--193

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Culberson
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Foxx
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stewart
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     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--220

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

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bass
     Black
     Blackburn
     Cardenas
     Crawford
     DeSantis
     Gaetz
     Hanabusa
     Hoyer
     Peterson
     Richmond
     Shuster
     Speier
     Tipton
     Walz


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2231

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


        Amendment No. 69 Offered by Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Jody B. Hice) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174, 
noes 240, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 356]

                               AYES--174

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Arrington
     Babin
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buck
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cloud
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curtis
     Davidson
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Russell
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner

[[Page H6550]]


     Sessions
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stewart
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--240

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amodei
     Bacon
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     Denham
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Faso
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Heck
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hollingsworth
     Huffman
     Hurd
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Joyce (OH)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Knight
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moolenaar
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norcross
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reed
     Reichert
     Rice (NY)
     Roby
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roskam
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce (CA)
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Stefanik
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Womack
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bass
     Black
     Blackburn
     Cardenas
     DeSantis
     Gaetz
     Hanabusa
     Hoyer
     Nolan
     Peterson
     Richmond
     Shuster
     Speier
     Walz


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2233

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


           Amendment No. 70 Offered by Mr. Smith of Missouri

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Smith) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 215, 
noes 199, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 357]

                               AYES--215

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blum
     Bost
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cloud
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     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
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     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)

                               NOES--199

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     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
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     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 (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Stefanik
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bass
     Black
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Cardenas
     DeSantis
     Gaetz
     Hanabusa
     Hoyer
     Peterson
     Richmond
     Shuster
     Speier
     Walz


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

[[Page H6551]]

  


                              {time}  2236

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 81 Offered by Mr. Carbajal

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Carbajal) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190, 
noes 224, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 358]

                               AYES--190

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bacon
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Comer
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harris
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     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
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--224

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blum
     Bost
     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)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     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
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     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
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     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

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bass
     Black
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Cardenas
     DeSantis
     Gaetz
     Hanabusa
     Hoyer
     Peterson
     Richmond
     Shuster
     Speier
     Walz


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2239

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 83 Offered by Mr. Palmer

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Palmer) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 226, 
noes 189, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 359]

                               AYES--226

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     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
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     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
     Jones
     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
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton

[[Page H6552]]


     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--189

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     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)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Faso
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     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
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     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
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bass
     Black
     Blackburn
     Cardenas
     DeSantis
     Gaetz
     Hanabusa
     Hoyer
     Peterson
     Richmond
     Shuster
     Speier
     Walz


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2243

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 84 Offered by Mr. Meadows

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Meadows) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223, 
noes 192, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 360]

                               AYES--223

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     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
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     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)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     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
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     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--192

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     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)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Faso
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill
     Himes
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     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
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reed
     Rice (NY)
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Stefanik
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bass
     Black
     Blackburn
     Cardenas
     DeSantis
     Gaetz
     Hanabusa
     Hoyer
     Peterson
     Richmond
     Shuster
     Speier
     Walz


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2246

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 85 Offered by Mr. Rothfus

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

[[Page H6553]]

  



                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231, 
noes 184, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 361]

                               AYES--231

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     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
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     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
     Jones
     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
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     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--184

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     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)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     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
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bass
     Black
     Blackburn
     Cardenas
     DeSantis
     Gaetz
     Hanabusa
     Hoyer
     Peterson
     Richmond
     Shuster
     Speier
     Walz


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2248

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 87 Offered by Mr. McHenry

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. McHenry) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201, 
noes 212, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 362]

                               AYES--201

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blum
     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
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curtis
     Davidson
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     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, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--212

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     Denham
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)

[[Page H6554]]


     Evans
     Faso
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Joyce (OH)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Knight
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Mast
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Stefanik
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Amodei
     Bass
     Black
     Blackburn
     Cardenas
     DeSantis
     Gaetz
     Hanabusa
     Hoyer
     Peterson
     Richmond
     Shuster
     Sinema
     Speier
     Walz


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2252

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 362.
  The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule, 
the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Curtis) having assumed the chair, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Acting Chair 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
6147) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, 
environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2019, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 
996, he reported the bill, as amended by that resolution, back to the 
House with sundry further amendments adopted in the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any further amendment reported from 
the Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of H.R. 6147 is postponed.

                          ____________________