[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 108 (Wednesday, July 6, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H4419-H4449]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaMalfa). Pursuant to House Resolution
794 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. 5485.
Will the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) kindly resume the
chair.
{time} 1914
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. 5485) making appropriations for financial services and
general government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and
for other purposes, with Mr. McClintock (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,
a ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised by the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) had been sustained.
No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in
House Report 114-639, amendments en bloc described in section 3 of
House Resolution 794, and pro forma amendments described in section 4
of that resolution.
Each amendment printed in the report shall be considered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated
in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as
provided by section 4 of House Resolution 794, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question.
It shall be in order at any time for the chair of the Committee on
Appropriations or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting
of amendments printed in the report not earlier disposed of. Amendments
en bloc shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees, shall
not be subject to amendment except as provided by section 4 of House
Resolution 794, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of
the question.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective
designees may offer up to 10 pro forma amendments each at any point for
the purpose of debate.
{time} 1915
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
July 6, 2016, on page H4419, the following appeared: Mr.
SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I rise to strike the last word.
The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. SERRANO. Mr.
Chair, I move to strike the last word.
========================= END NOTE =========================
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about the fiscal year
2017 Financial Services Appropriations Act.
I have been privileged to serve on the subcommittee since the
beginning of the 114th Congress. I first want to commend the excellent
work of Chairman Crenshaw, who will be retiring at the end of this
Congress, Ranking Member Serrano, as well as the staffs of both the
majority and the minority.
Unfortunately, I will have to oppose this bill on final passage for a
number of reasons. For example, I know that it is not the most popular
or even the most politically wise thing to defend the Internal Revenue
Service, but it does not make any sense to complain about the work of
the IRS and then slash its ability to function by cutting its budget
$246 million below the FY 2016 level and $1.4 billion below the
President's budget request.
Severe budget cuts have led to fewer audits, longer appeals, delayed
refunds, and poorer service for the American people. It has also led to
billions of dollars in lost tax revenue, money that could be used to
repair our Nation's infrastructure or reduce the deficit. Instead, the
cuts have only served to line the pockets of tax cheats, people who
can't be audited and have collection by the Internal Revenue Service.
Taxpayer Services, however, does get funding at the amount requested,
which is a positive step for turning around the IRS' customer service
issues. At the very least, it is encouraging to see the Congress taking
the first steps to improving customer service and tax compliance--
resulting from unfair and unnecessary political attacks on the agency--
but now they are taking it seriously.
I am also concerned that the FY 2017 Financial Services
Appropriations Act contains a number of contentious policy riders that
will hinder the government's ability to do its job. First of all, the
bill unnecessarily micromanages the District of Columbia's budget and
its laws, restricting home rule and the ability of the District of
Columbia to manage its own finances.
Also, the Federal Communications Commission is prohibited from
implementing its popular net neutrality rules until all lawsuits
contesting the rules have been resolved. The Commission has carefully
tailored these rules to ensure approval by the courts, and the
provision simply delays the implementation of consumer and small
business protection from unscrupulous business practices.
The bill severely undermines the Affordable Care Act by prohibiting
funds to implement the individual mandate and the transfer of funds to
the IRS for the use of implementing the Affordable Care Act.
Additionally, the bill inhibits corporate transparency by blocking
the Securities and Exchange Commission from requesting information on
political contributions by corporations.
Finally, it continues to prohibit individuals traveling to Cuba for
educational exchanges outside of a degree program. That policy is a
relic of the last century, and it has absolutely no part in today's
globalized economy.
As I said, I cannot support the FY 2017 Financial Services
Appropriations Act as it currently stands. While we are still in tough
economic times, this bill contains too many harmful policies and does
not allocate the resources in a way to grow our Nation's economy.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Ellison
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 114-639.
Mr. ELLISON. 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 2, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, we can raise living standards for working
families across the country if we use Federal dollars to create good
jobs.
My amendment would reprogram funds to create an Office of Good Jobs
in the Treasury Department that would help ensure the Department's
procurement, grant making, and regulatory decisions to encourage the
creation of good, decently paid jobs, collective bargaining rights, and
responsible employment practices.
Mr. Chairman, I am actually a little bit shocked to know that right
now the U.S. Government is America's leading low-wage job creator,
funding over 2 million poverty jobs through contracts, loans, and
grants with corporate America. That is more than the total number of
low-wage workers employed by Walmart and McDonald's combined.
[[Page H4420]]
U.S. contract workers earn so little, Mr. Chairman, that nearly 40
percent of them use public assistance, like food stamps, Section 8, and
Medicaid, to feed and shelter their families. To add insult to injury,
many of these low-wage U.S. contract workers are driven deeper into
poverty because their employers steal their wages and break other
Federal employment and labor laws.
It is intended that the appropriation for salaries and expenses at
the United States Treasury Department be used to establish an Office of
Good Jobs in the Department aimed at ensuring that the Department's
procurement, grant-making, and regulatory decisions encourage the
creation of decently paid jobs, collective bargaining rights, and
responsible employment practices. The office's structure shall be
substantially similar to the Centers for Faith-Based and Neighborhood
Partnerships located within the Department of Education, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Department of Homeland Security,
Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Labor,
Department of Agriculture, and Department of Commerce, Department of
Veterans Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Small Business
Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, the Corporation for
National and Community Service, and U.S. Agency for International
Development.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Serrano), the ranking member.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I support the amendment.
The aim of this amendment is to create an Office of Good Jobs within
the Department of the Treasury. This office would help ensure that the
Treasury makes contracting and employment decisions encouraging the
creation of decently paid jobs, implementation of fair labor practices,
and responsible employment practices.
The Federal Government ought to be setting an example for the Nation
when it comes to contracting decisions. Members of Congress who are
committed to creating good-paying jobs and supporting workers have a
chance with this amendment to see those values reflected throughout our
government.
This office will help guide the Treasury to make responsible
contracting and employment decisions and do right by the countless men
and women who help us perform the Nation's business each and every day.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is duplicative and ignores
the existing contractor award system that we already have in place.
Contracting officers must already consult the system for award
management to ensure a contractor can be awarded a contract.
Businesses on the excluded parties list systems have been suspended
or debarred through a due process system and may not be eligible to
receive or renew Federal contracts for cited offenses. So the best way
to ensure that the government contracts provide grants to the best
employers is to enforce the existing suspension and debarment system.
Bad actors who are in violation of the basic worker protections
should not be awarded Federal contracts. Everybody agrees with that.
That is why the Federal Government has already got a system in place to
deny Federal contracts to bad actors. If a contractor fails to maintain
high standards of integrity and business ethics, agencies already have
the authority to suspend or debar the employer from government
contracting.
In 2014, for instance, Federal agencies issued more than 1,000
suspensions and nearly 2,000 debarments to employees who bid on Federal
contracts. This amendment is just going to delay the procurement
process, with harmful consequences. On numerous occasions, the
nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has highlighted costly
litigation stemming from the complex regulatory rules, including from
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
So this amendment simply punishes employers who may unknowingly or
unwillingly get caught in the Federal Government's maze of bureaucratic
rules and reporting requirements. The procurement process is already
plagued by delays and beneficiaries.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, this is not duplicative. This amendment
actually is not about debarment. Debarment says that, if you are the
worst actor, you are going to get a sanction. This amendment says we
are going to prioritize contractors who have good employment practices.
Imagine yourself being a businessperson with a government contract
and you are over here trying to make sure that you are respecting the
union that the workers may have. You are making sure you never get hit
with wage theft. You are making sure that you have a good benefits
program for your employers. You are a good employer, the kind that we
want to have working for the Federal Government, yet you are competing
with somebody who does the bare minimum they can do to avoid debarment.
That is the mistake that the gentleman from Florida is making. The
Office of Good Jobs would prioritize good employers who make it a
priority to say that we value our employees, we are not going to pay
them the very least we can get by with, we are not going to try to
force them on government benefits by not paying them a fair wage.
It should be compelling to all of us that 40 percent of contract
workers make so little that they are eligible for government welfare
programs. These are people who work. They are people who work a job.
They might be working at McDonald's, they might be doing cleanup in a
Federal building, or they might be doing any number of jobs; but if
somebody is making meals for our heroes at the Pentagon, I think they
ought to be able to get a fair, decent job, and there ought to be
somebody out there who makes sure that it happens. If there is no one
to make sure that it happens, it won't happen. That is why our
government, today, funds more low-wage jobs than Walmart or McDonald's
combined.
It is time to end this race to the bottom. It is time to say that the
biggest buyer of goods and services in the world, the United States,
should use its power to promote good jobs, not get-by jobs, not
substandard jobs that barely eke past debarment, but good jobs.
I would think that everybody in this body would want to use the
dollar that way. I think the American taxpayer would want to use the
dollar that way. What if the American taxpayer knew that the Federal
contractors are paying 40 percent of the workers so little that these
workers actually are eligible for welfare programs though they work
hard every single day?
Mr. Chairman, we ask for a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, because I
think that everybody in this body wants to see good jobs for the
American people.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ELLISON. 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 Minnesota
will be postponed.
{time} 1930
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Duffy
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 114-639.
Mr. DUFFY. 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 8, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $20,748,545)''.
Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $15,270,929)''.
Page 9, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $239,231)''.
[[Page H4421]]
Page 9, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $497,965)''.
Page 9, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $1,327,907)''.
Page 10, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $1,576,889)''.
Page 10, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $2,074,855)''.
Page 10, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $165,988)''.
Page 10, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $24,898)''.
Page 265, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $20,748,545)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The House Financial Services Committee, in conjunction with the
Judiciary Committee, has been engaging in an investigation in regard to
bank settlement agreements that were reached that created a slush fund
to drive money to third-party organizations.
Now, that is offensive because, if we look at our Constitution, it is
the Congress that is supposed to appropriate, not the administration,
not the DOJ, but the Congress. In these bank settlement agreements, you
have the administration, along with approval from the judiciary,
actually appropriating money to groups that this institution did not
approve.
So, to be clear, we are looking at funding for CDFI. My amendment
will reduce that funding by $20.7 million. So before you are all
shocked, let's actually talk about the numbers. The committee has
increased funding by $16.5 million, bringing the number from $233.5
million to $250 million. That is an over 7 percent increase in funding
for CDFI.
But if you add in the money that came from the bank settlements, the
$45 billion from bank settlements, this is a $62 million increase or,
as a percentage, it is 26 percent of an increase for CDFI. It is huge.
If we want to increase that funding by 26 percent, that is our
decision, in this House, not the DOJ, not the President, not the
judiciary. It is our decision.
So all I do is say: Hey, let's bring this back by $20 million. That
is all. And still, if you include the $16 million that is currently in
the bill, and then the $25 million that they got from the slush fund,
it is still a 17 percent increase.
This makes sense. I ask you all to join my amendment, join in a
little effort to stand up for Article I of the Constitution, and do
what is right.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CRENSHAW. This happens to be one of the most bipartisan accounts
in the bill, and it is a lean program; it fills a niche that provides
capital and credit in areas where often it is difficult. These are
competitive grants and it is complicated to a certain extent. It is not
as simple as just kind of flowing money back and forth. So I just want
to urge people, to say: We don't want to reduce the funding in these
areas.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Serrano), the ranking member.
Mr. SERRANO. I thank the chairman.
I was going to open up by saying the same thing: This is probably the
most bipartisan account that we have in this bill and it has been for
years.
I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment would
slash funding for the Community Development Financial Institutions
Fund, or CDFI Fund, by $20.7 million. This is a harmful and totally
misguided cut.
The fact is that the CDFI Fund helps generate economic growth and
opportunity in some of our Nation's most distressed communities. The
Fund supports financial institutions recognized for their expertise in
providing services and support to distressed communities. These
institutions leverage Federal funds to draw in new or increase sources
of private funding.
According to the description provided to the Rules Committee, the
gentleman's amendment says: to ``offset an inappropriate augmentation
of this account outside the appropriations process by the Department of
Justice through settlement agreements, which required banks to donate
$20.7 million to certified CDFI entities.''
But the fact is that the Fund is not receiving money from DOJ or from
any bank. It is completely inaccurate and inappropriate to reduce the
CDFI Fund in any amount as a result of the gentleman's assertion.
Any settlement with banks for fraudulent activity during or leading
up to the financial crisis was delivered by banks directly to CDFIs. At
no point has the Fund benefited or seen an increase in funding as a
result.
The fact that some of our large banks have entered into civil
settlements with the Department of Justice should not even enter into
this discussion. The fact is that the need for investment in these
communities is far greater than the resources that have been provided.
The passage of this amendment would do a great deal of harm. We are
not just talking about cutting $20.7 million from the Fund. Because of
the leveraging of private sector investment, we are actually talking
about an amendment that would effectively cut many times that number of
investment in job creation, community facilities, and housing.
I strongly urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young).
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to Mr.
Duffy's amendment. I have listened to his arguments very closely. My
interest in this is the American Indian and Alaska Native and Hawaiian
Native. My interest is because this program, the CDFI, is the one
program where they have access to moneys, and they cannot get it from
the standard lending institutions for their businesses that they are
trying to create. And it has worked successfully in Alaska and in the
lower 48, too.
I would suggest, respectfully, that a lot of people don't understand,
we don't have a road system. Most of our--in fact, all of our villages
don't have banks, and this program can work and does work very well to
try to improve their lot. And I say they have been successful at
creating new jobs that create money.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest one thing. I listened to these
arguments about the money we are appropriating, and I wish everybody
would understand in this body we cannot create jobs by creating
government jobs. That is not real money. That is money that is being
consumed. And this body has been neglectful in creating jobs from
resources and manufacturing from, have not supported, nor have they
made the suggestion that this should be done.
So we talk about these programs, we need to have money available to
create jobs that create real money, and a lot of this is done in the
rural communities in my State of Alaska and the Indian country in the
lower 48.
So I suggest the gentleman has a point, but not a strong enough point
to have me vote for his amendment.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I heard the gentleman from across the aisle talk about harmful cuts.
When you look at the money that is going to this program, CDFI, even
with my reduction, there is a $41 billion increase, or a 17 percent
increase in funding. You can't disregard the money that went from the
bank settlements. That is money that we should have appropriated. That
has been taken from us, but we have to consider it. You can't not
consider it.
I listened to the debate in this Chamber among my colleagues,
especially on the right, and they talk about: Oh, my goodness, we need
to regain congressional authority, we want to start an Article I
movement where we actually control spending. Well, hey, here is your
opportunity.
When the Department of Justice and the administration circumvent the
Congress, we should take it seriously, and we should take into account
the money that they appropriated through a bank settlement.
[[Page H4422]]
I also hear my colleagues talk about: Oh, my gosh, we have a really
big debt, $19 trillion in debt is going to tank our economy. And I
agree. If you care about $19 trillion in debt, we can reduce this fund
by $20 million, and still have it $41 million more than it was last
year.
And, oh, by the way, this appropriations is $3 million more than the
President's request, so we are not harming the Fund. We are not harming
people. More money is going to CDFI. It is just that we are considering
the amount of money that came through bank settlements that
circumvented Congress, and I think that is only appropriate.
I would ask all of my colleagues to join with me and do what is right
by this institution, and do what is right by way of our debt and our
next generation, and make sure that we consider those bank settlements,
and reduce this fund by $20.7 million.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I wish it were as simple as the gentleman
suggests. But it is important to realize this amendment would literally
reduce almost every program in the CDFI. And remember, these funding
cuts would devastate some of our Nation's most distressed populations,
including Native Americans and people with disabilities, people in
rural communities. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DUFFY. 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 Wisconsin
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Becerra
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 114-639.
Mr. BECERRA. 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:
Strike section 127.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Becerra) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Secret money is killing our democracy. More and more, our elections
are being driven by organizations that are receiving hundreds of
millions of dollars in secret donations. We don't know and can't find
out who is giving all this money.
These secret organizations use the Tax Code to hide the source of
their money by operating under a law meant for not-for-profit social
welfare organizations. These organizations get tax-exempt treatment and
don't have to report the donors of their dollars.
The result is this: What was meant to be for a social welfare
organization, organizations we would recognize, like voluntary fire
departments or the NAACP, all those organizations are now being used as
cover by other organizations which are using the Tax Code to be able to
spend hundreds of millions of dollars driving our elections every year
now; so much so that, today, those organizations that are so-called
social welfare organizations are spending more money than the political
parties, the Democratic political party and the Republican political
party, spend combined.
In 2006, these so-called social welfare organizations spent about
$1.5 million campaigning, politicking. In 2012, our last Presidential
election, these so-called social welfare organizations spent more than
$257 million, more than the two political parties spent in 2012 for the
Presidential elections.
Mr. Chairman, there is a provision in this bill that would prevent
the IRS from giving guidance to make sure that no one is abusing the
Tax Code to influence our politics, and I simply have an amendment that
would strike that provision, so that the IRS could tell us what is a
social welfare organization and what is really a political
organization, so we don't give special tax treatment to these so-called
social welfare organizations that are really politicking and we don't
let them hide behind that particular tax provision to hide the names of
their donors.
We have no idea who is giving this money and, Mr. Chairman, it is
time for us to have transparency and openness in our election system,
not hide this. Secret money is killing our elections.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, first, let me say that the IRS made a
real mess of this 501(c)(4). You remember, that was the section of the
Code that they used to single out individuals and groups of individuals
based on their political philosophy, then they went around to
intimidate them, to bully them, to put extra scrutiny on them, and they
made a real mess of it.
But let me interrupt my opposition to yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Serrano), my good friend, the ranking member, to
speak in support, and then I will continue.
Mr. SERRANO. That will confuse some people.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment. This amendment would
strike language that prevents reform of the 501(c)(4) rules that have
caused confusion and abuse in the campaign financial field.
We have heard from a number of charities and foundations that these
rules governing electoral campaign activity must be made more clear and
be effectively enforced. The language in the underlying bill prevents
that and should be stricken.
I urge support for the amendment, and I thank my chairman for the
minute.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BECERRA. Can the Chairman let me know how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from
New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham).
Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. I thank my distinguished
colleague from California for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, in the 2012 Presidential election, dark money groups
such as these spent over a quarter billion dollars on partisan
political campaign activities. In 2014, we saw the greatest wave of
secret special interest money ever raised in a congressional election.
{time} 1945
In 2016, dark money groups have spent nearly 10 times what they did
at the same point last year.
We must ensure that social welfare groups exclusively spend their
money on their social welfare mission like early childhood education or
veterans' assistance.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this sensible
amendment to help ensure that our elections are transparent.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by Mr. Becerra.
Special interest groups have increasingly been raising dark money for
political campaigns by exploiting loopholes in IRS regulations. These
groups designate themselves as 501(c)(4) or social welfare
organizations, which allows them to operate tax exempt and raise
unlimited money completely anonymously.
Tax-exempt status was intended to be limited to social welfare
organizations that focus on just that--the social welfare--not
political activity. But IRS audits of these organization can take
years, and at that point, the damage is already done.
The announcement that the IRS would release clearer guidelines on
what constitutes candidate-related political activity should have been
welcomed, not blocked by a rider.
[[Page H4423]]
Real campaign finance reform is still needed, and passing this
amendment striking the rider would be an important step to help the IRS
clamp down on organizations illegally funneling anonymous, unregulated
money in our elections.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, when you make a contribution to the local volunteer
fire department, you know what the money will be used for. When you
make a contribution to the League of Women Voters, you know what the
contribution will be used for. When you make a contribution to the
NAACP, you know what the contribution will be used for.
There are a whole bunch of organizations that we don't understand why
they are using their money for something other than social welfare.
They are influencing our elections. It has to stop. We can't even find
out what the source of the money is. It could be money laundered from
some drug sale. It could be money from some foreign government. We
don't know where the money from some of these organizations is coming
from to influence our elections.
It is time for us to have clarity. This provision in this bill has no
reason, no purpose, to be here. It simply keeps secret the dark money
that influences our elections. My amendment simply strikes that
provision so that the IRS can give us clarity on who can and who cannot
use tax-exempt laws to try to be a social welfare organization. It is
time for us to have clarity in the law. Get rid of secret money.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote for this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, as I said, the IRS made an incredible mess of this
section of the IRS code, the 501(c)(4). After they messed it up and
they intimidated people and they bullied folks, then they said: Well,
let's just write a new regulation.
So in 2013 they came along and said: Here is how we are going to
determine tax-exempt status.
A lot of people said: Well, here is an effort to just kind of shut
down freedom of speech.
What is interesting is, instead of clearing the air, the IRS
generated this incredible firestorm of criticism from all across the
political spectrum. Not surprisingly, the American Center for Law and
Justice, which represents Tea Party organizations targeted by the IRS,
described the regulation as an attack on free speech.
But among the other 160,000 comments that came, the American Civil
Liberties Union said: ``The proposed rule threatens to discourage or
sterilize an enormous amount of political discourse in America.''
The IRS has got plenty to do. They always complain they don't have
enough money. They don't need to go out and try to write a new rule to
kind of clear the air of what they messed up a couple of years ago. The
only thing this new regulation did was it just kind of united liberals
and conservatives. So the best thing to do is leave it like it is and
reject this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BECERRA. 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. 4 Offered by Mr. Ellison
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 114-639.
Mr. ELLISON. 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 84, beginning on line 13, strike section 506.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with Ranking Member Johnson to
strike section 506 of this appropriations bill. This is another anti-
consumer provision inserted into a funding bill. It actually doesn't
belong here.
The language I ask my colleagues to remove restricts the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau's ability to curb mandatory arbitration in
consumer contracts. Last month, the CFPB proposed prohibitions on class
action lawsuits and mandatory pre-dispute mandatory arbitration in
financial contracts.
I strongly supported the CFPB's actions. We must limit this well-
known scourge on the rights of everyday Americans: forced arbitration
clauses. People talk about how the rules are rigged. They say the deck
is stacked in favor of powerful interests. Forced arbitration clauses
are a perfect example of an unfair system. Powerful corporations rig
the rules to make it more difficult for people to hold companies
accountable for wrongdoing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Ellison amendment, which strikes section 506 from the bill, a deeply
flawed provision that would restrict the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau's ability to fulfill its statutory mandate to regulate pre-
dispute mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts for financial
products and services.
Over the past several decades, forced arbitration clauses have
proliferated in countless consumer, employment, and small-business
contracts depriving countless Americans of their right to a jury trial
in a court of law while insulating corporations from public
accountability. That is why when Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act in
2010, we explicitly empowered the CFPB to study pre-dispute forced
arbitration, and then based on the study's results, ban or limit the
practice through regulation.
In March 2015, the CFPB issued a seminal report finding that forced
arbitration agreements restrict consumers' access to relief in disputes
involving financial services and products. As overwhelmingly and
methodically documented in this report, the CFPB confirmed what we
already knew, that forced arbitration clauses blocked consumers from
suing wrongdoers in court individually or in class action lawsuits.
Now it is time for the CFPB to ensure that consumers have their day
in court by adopting a strong rule banning forced arbitration clauses
in contracts for financial services and products. This amendment
ensures that the CFPB can do just that.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Ellison amendment.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Woodall). The gentleman from Florida is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Womack), a valued member of our subcommittee.
Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time and also
his great work as chairman of the subcommittee. As a proud member of
the subcommittee, we are going to miss Mr. Crenshaw. It has been a
delight to work with him as well as the ranking member, Mr. Serrano,
for his tireless effort on behalf of these issues.
Mr. Chairman, for 90 years--for 90 years--Federal law has protected
the enforceability of arbitration agreements because arbitration
provides an alternative method of resolving disputes that is quicker
and cheaper than the expensive, overburdened court system.
Hundreds of millions of contracts are based on this principle: credit
card contracts, checking accounts, Internet agreements, cell phones,
and cable TV. There are dozens of contracts that have this provision.
[[Page H4424]]
Don't let my colleagues across the aisle fool you on this subject.
Arbitration empowers individuals. Injured parties can obtain fair
resolution of disputes without the need of an attorney. But many oppose
this approach, particularly plaintiffs' attorneys, because arbitration
proceedings can't be used to bring lawyer-driven class actions that
provide millions in legal fees but little or no benefit to the
consumer.
Dodd-Frank authorized the CFPB to conduct a study of arbitration and
at the same time granted CFPB authority to promulgate a regulation for
related products or services within the bureau's jurisdiction. However,
this authority was caveated, Mr. Chairman, with the requirement that
any rule be in the public interest and for protection of consumers
while remaining consistent with the results of the bureau's arbitration
study.
Mr. Chairman, Congress wanted any regulation to be based on a fair,
complete study of real-world implications of regulating or banning
arbitration. Yet, CFPB's study--which led to its May, 2016, proposed
regulation effectively eliminating arbitration--fell far short of the
requirements set by Congress.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. WOMACK. So, Mr. Chairman, that is why the Appropriations
Committee approved language in our bill to address this issue, and we
did so unanimously. Now Congress has to step in again to restore basic
fairness to the effort to regulate arbitration.
Section 506 of this bill simply ensures that no rule issued by the
bureau shall be effective until the bureau evaluates the costs and
benefits to consumers associated with conditioning or limiting the use
of arbitration and specifically, Mr. Chairman, finds that the
demonstrable benefits of the rule outweigh the costs to consumers.
Any attempt to strike it would be misguided.
So, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment by the
gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, if you live in Minnesota and you get into a dispute
with a bank over a bank account, a credit card or a cell phone company,
well, that might just be too bad because the arbitration court is in
Delaware. You can pack up and move to a hotel for a week. You don't
have any other option. Instead of an impartial judge, your case is
going to be decided by an arbitrator chosen and paid for by the firm.
What if the arbitrator makes a mistake in ruling?
We have appellate courts for a reason. If you have forced arbitration
and the arbiter makes a mistake, that is too bad for you. The ruling
likely cannot be repealed or reversed.
Do you want to know what happened to other people who may have had
the same problem with the company?
You are out of luck there, too, because the documents and the
arbitrator's decisions are not publicly available.
This is unfair, and it is wrong. It is no way to treat consumers in
our country. We should strike this improper provision. We should accord
the CFPB with the respect it really does deserve because they examine
this issue carefully in the public interests.
Strike section 506 of this appropriations bill. It doesn't belong
there. It is anticonsumer, and both Republicans and Democrats have
consumers in our districts, and I hope that they are following this
debate. Because when they find that a financial product with a forced
arbitration clause is hurting them and their family, they are going to
know who stood up for them. I hope all Members, as they choose their
vote on this particular bill, think carefully about who is on their
side and who isn't.
{time} 2000
I would just like to add, as I close, that we should split the CFPB's
efforts to allow Americans to join our claims together and hold
financial companies accountable when they make mistakes and when they
break the law. We should encourage, not prevent, a fair financial
marketplace. If you want a fair system, if you want greater economic
freedom, then those mandatory arbitration clauses need to stop.
Please support the Ellison-Johnson amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, for 9 years arbitration agreements have
been legal, and they have been upheld by the courts. They provide an
alternative method of resolving disputes. They are quicker and cheaper
than the slow, more expensive court system. The provision in our bill
before you merely requires the CFPB to stop and further study the use
of arbitration before moving forward with this arbitration rule.
In their own study, it is noted that consumers didn't select
financial products like credit cards or cell phones based on whether
they were subject to dispute resolution clauses or may require
arbitration. And actually, studies have shown that consumers receive
more compensation in arbitration than they do in class action. So you
have to ask yourself: Why is the CFPB trying to go after something
consumers say they don't care about but actually financially benefit
from?
I urge rejection of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. McClintock). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CRENSHAW. 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 Minnesota
will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in House
Report 114-639.
Permission to Consider Amendment Nos. 5, 6, and 7 Offered by Ms. Moore
of Wisconsin En Bloc
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment
Nos. 5, 6, and 7, printed in House Report 114-639, be considered en
bloc.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Florida?
There was no objection.
Amendments En Bloc Offered by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment Nos. 5, 6, and 7 made in
order under the rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
The text of the amendments is as follows:
amendment no. 5 offered by ms. moore of wisconsin
Strike section 501.
amendment no. 6 offered by ms. moore of wisconsin
Strike section 503.
amendment no. 7 offered by ms. moore of wisconsin
Strike section 505.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, 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 would like to thank the chair and the
ranking member for agreeing to this en bloc amendment request.
These three amendments, offered with Financial Services ranking
member Ms. Waters, Mrs. Maloney of New York, and Mr. Ellison of
Minnesota, address Republican attacks on the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, the CFPB.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is one of the central
pillars of the Wall Street reform, the Dodd-Frank Act. To date, the
Bureau has returned more than $11.4 billion to 25 million consumers
that have been harmed by predatory financial practices.
Let me repeat that for you, Mr. Chairman. $11.4 billion has been
returned to our constituents, 25 million of them, as a result of the
work of the CFPB.
Yet our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to again side
with
[[Page H4425]]
foes of the Bureau, with the predatory and other unscrupulous lenders.
Our amendment seeks to preserve the independence and efficacy of this
watchdog agency.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Ellison), a member of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
That is right, Mr. Chairman, $11.4 billion to over 25 million
consumers. The CFPB has been working on behalf of consumers.
How many households are stronger, better off because of the CFPB? How
much justice has been accorded by the CFPB? And yet here we are, after
being so successful with the CFPB, and our friends on the other side of
the aisle want to weaken it, water it down, snarl it up, and entangle
it up in a bureaucratic mess.
It is a good thing, Mr. Chairman, that the CFPB is independent. It is
good that they don't have to worry about the political pressures. It is
good that they can have a single-minded focus on one thing, and one
thing only: what is good for the American consumer.
By the way, we have plenty of oversight. Just ask Richard Cordray. He
must be the most frequent visitor to the Financial Services Committee
in the whole of the United States Government. He comes all of the time
and has to answer question after question all day long, day in and day
out, from our Republican colleagues, and he answers the questions as
well as anybody possibly could.
There is accountability. There is a letter writing process. There are
questions he has to answer. There are all types of oversight.
But do you know what? There is not the ability for the Republicans to
say: We are going to snatch your money if you don't do it our way. We
are going to take away your independence and tie down the CFPB in an
unwieldy five-person commission if you don't do things our way.
Right now, the consumers have an advocate on their side, and that is
the way it should stay. I support and urge support for the Moore
amendments.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendments.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike one of the
very best and most important provisions of the bill, that is, putting
the CFPB under the appropriations process. That is number one.
It also would strike a provision of the current law, which merely
requires the CFPB to notify Congress whenever they request money from
the Federal Reserve. That is the law today.
And the third thing it does is it strikes the provision that changes
this CFPB, the Director, to a five-member commission.
Now, the combination of these provisions introduces ordinary and
customary congressional checks that most every other agency abides by.
We are not asking the CFPB to do anything the Department of Defense or
the State Department or the Department of Justice or the Treasury
Department doesn't already do. I think it is truly ironic that the
agency responsible for making consumer financial products more
transparent and financial institutions more accountable is
nontransparent to the Congress and to the American people.
The Dodd-Frank authorizes the CFPB to fund itself by drawing money
from the Federal Reserve to the extent their Director deems
``necessary.'' Now, the Federal Reserve doesn't oversee the agency. It
doesn't exercise any authority over it. But the Federal Reserve must
transfer the CFPB whatever funds the Director requests without asking
any questions.
So the Bureau has already diverted over $2 billion from the
Treasury's general fund and, therefore, increased the Federal debt by
$2 billion without any congressional input or approval of its
activities.
Now, other consumer protection agencies, such as the Consumer Product
Safety Commission or the Federal Trade Commission, they are both funded
through the appropriations process. Why not the CFPB?
With regard to the five-member commission structure, I think some
more diverse viewpoints would help the CFPB understand stakeholder
concerns and would make the direction of the agency a little bit more
accountable. Other consumer investor protection agencies, such as the
Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, or
the Securities and Exchange Commission, they are all funded through the
appropriations process, and they are all led by five-member
commissions. Why not the CFPB?
So this provision in the bill neither abolishes the Bureau; they
don't eliminate the Bureau's funding. Instead, they will increase the
Bureau's transparency and leadership, allow us to understand what it is
that they are doing and how they are going about it.
Let's just make the CFPB a little more transparent and a little more
accountable. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, could the Chair inform me about how much
time I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concern that the gentleman
has about maintaining the budgetary constraints, but that is the very
problem that agencies like the FDIC and others have had. They have had
the authority, but they have not had the independence. The
appropriation process ties the hands of these agencies. The one bright
star is the CFPB, which is independent, and it supports consumers.
I just want to point out that changing the structure of the CFPB to a
commission would add $66 million to our deficit.
I look forward to my friends on the other side of the aisle's vote on
my amendment since it not only preserves the independence of the CFPB,
but it continues to ensure that U.S. markets are the fairest and most
robust in the world, and it protects consumers from mischief in this
appropriations process.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered
by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendments offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin
will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in House
Report 114-639. Does any Member wish to take up this amendment?
The Chair understands that amendment No. 9 printed in House Report
114-639 will not be offered.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Himes
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in House Report 114-639.
Mr. HIMES. 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 114, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
Page 115, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Himes) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chairman, my amendment does one very simple thing,
which is to increase the funding for the Securities and Exchange
Commission by $50 million, bringing the funding in this bill for the
Securities and Exchange Commission to the level of funding for the SEC
in 2016.
I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that this level of funding is still
significantly lower than the President's request of $1.78 billion.
I would further point out, Mr. Chairman, that the work of the SEC, at
its core, is about protecting investors who are essential to the
functioning of our capital markets and to protecting the
[[Page H4426]]
long-term sustainability of the U.S. financial system.
Mr. Chairman, as I think this body knows, the Dodd-Frank Act--which I
understand is controversial in this Chamber, but which has gone a very
long way to avoiding the kind of meltdown that we had in 2008 and which
destroyed $17 trillion in American asset value at its worst--as well as
the JOBS Act, which attracted strong bipartisan support in this
Chamber, those two bills required the SEC to write some 70 new
regulations. And yet despite that requirement and all of the advocacy
that we saw, particularly from my friends on the Republican side of the
aisle for more alacrity in the writing of the rules for the JOBS Act,
we are now seeing a real cut in the budget for the SEC.
Just to give you a sense of what the SEC does, it is now responsible
for overseeing some 26,000 market participants and over 9,000 public
companies. The assets managed by SEC-registered investment advisers
have increased 210 percent since 2005 to almost $70 trillion. That is a
lot of money. That is a lot of investment.
This is an organization which is really essential to one of the chief
competitive advantages that the United States has, which is the
liquidity and the respect that the world has for our capital markets.
Again, $50 million bringing the SEC up to the level of funding that it
had last year.
And as a final point, let me point out that the SEC is funded not by
taxes, but by fees that it collects.
{time} 2015
So this would not have the effect of cutting another program or of
raising anybody's taxes; but it would, in fact, simply authorize $50
million in fees that would be used for the SEC's budget.
I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for the
opportunity to offer this amendment, and I would like to thank the
cosponsors of this amendment, Representatives Maloney, Hinojosa,
Perlmutter, and Sewell.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, the bill before us today takes a measured
approach to the Securities and Exchange Commission. A lot of people
don't realize that that agency has received some of the largest
increases over the last decade that a lot of agencies wish they had
received.
Today, we cut the SEC's funding by $50 million from the 2016 because
the Commission estimates that $50 million is carryover funding from
last year. In addition, we rescind money from the SEC's reserve fund,
which was set up kind of like a slush fund under Dodd-Frank. That is
totally outside congressional oversight.
Because the Commission has been using the reserve fund for important
information technology projects, we have increased funding for the IT
in the bill. Now, I believe that, if we upgrade information technology,
the Commission will be better able to leverage its resources, catch bad
actors, and provide the quality of review that security filings
deserve.
To that end, the bill targets funding for another area of need within
the Commission, and that is the economic analysis. I believe continuing
to set aside funding to fully fund the SEC's Division of Economic and
Risk Analysis is going to help the SEC's work withstand any kind of
judicial review.
I happen to believe that the current Chair, Mary Jo White, is
steering the SEC towards prioritizing enforcement and investor
protection and not so much the politically charged rulemakings. Because
of that, we have kept the SEC's funding at a reasonable level. The
level of funding included in this bill is more than fair and does not
need to be adjusted in any way.
The fact that this agency is fee-based in no way diminishes the need
for congressional oversight over the Commission's funding. I would say
the SEC is not starved for resources, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this
amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's perspective, but I
disagree. He is correct that, in fact, the funding for the SEC has
risen in the last 8 years, but so has the dramatic amount of work that
is required of it.
Mr. Chair, I will close with just one important point, which is that
we saw over the course of the last 2 weeks the dramatic market
volatility that was introduced by Great Britain's decision to remove
itself from the EU. There was not a stock market or an asset market
anywhere on the globe that didn't suffer a significant jolt. These are
moments of uncertainty--maybe even of chaos--in the capital markets.
We have a fairly significant election coming up this November. We are
not looking at a moment in which the capital markets are likely to
experience smooth sailing off into the foreseeable future.
We saw, in the last 2 weeks, precisely the volatility that warrants
the need to have a cop on the beat to watch. This is not the moment to
cut the SEC's funding. I would urge my colleagues in this Chamber to
pass this amendment and to fully fund the cop that we need on this
beat.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I just want to reiterate that we are
treating the SEC very fairly. We want to make sure that the markets are
safe and that they are orderly, and they are. Just giving more money to
the SEC is not necessarily going to make things better.
Over the years, as my colleague understands, we have increased their
funding, and they still miss an occasional Madoff scandal and things
like that. You don't just buy the regulation. You spend the money where
you ought to spend it--cost-benefit, help them keep the markets
orderly--and that is what we do in this bill.
I urge the rejection of this amendment.
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. Himes).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HIMES. 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 Connecticut
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. DeFazio
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in House Report 114-639.
Mr. DeFAZIO. 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 115, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $22,703,000)''.
Page 265, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $22,703,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 90 seconds.
This bipartisan amendment would zero out funding for an obsolete,
archaic system--the so-called Selective Service.
Thirty-nine years ago, the Russians invaded Afghanistan. Jimmy
Carter, in one of the moments of his rather pathetic Presidency,
decided that we would send two symbols to the Russians: we wouldn't go
to the Olympics, and we would reinstate registration for the draft
despite the fact that his own Selective Service had just come up with a
report showing that the need for Selective Service was obsolete and
unnecessary.
They tried to recall all of the reports. They didn't. Senator Mark
Hatfield obtained one, and it was printed in the Congressional Record.
The Selective Service, itself, decided its time was gone, but we
reinstated it as a symbol of our opposition to the Russians.
So here we are today, 39 years later, wasting $23 million a year in
making every male American, at the age of 18, register for a draft that
will never, ever again happen, under penalty of felony of law, of the
deprivation of Federal assistance, of Federal jobs, and of other
[[Page H4427]]
things--for life--if they fail to register. Yet we are still here
tonight to defend it.
The chairman will say: Well, we are going to study this. We are going
to study it and decide whether or not we might still need this someday.
Yet, of course, the Department of Defense, itself, says: We do not want
a draft. We like to select highly qualified people for our all-
volunteer military.
In fact, in March, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter said: ``The
thing I'd like to say about the Selective Service System and the draft,
generally, is this: We want to pick our own people. We don't want
people to be forced to serve us.'' Yet the chairman of the committee
will rise in a vain attempt to defend this wasteful system.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I think most of us would hope that we won't
ever need to use the draft again, but I think the agency is an
important insurance policy that we can use against unforeseen threats.
In an emergency, in a wartime situation, the effects of this amendment
could be disastrous. This is a small price to pay for an agency that
has the potential to avert a crisis should the draft ever need to be
reinstated.
The voluntary military we have maintained for 40 years is, certainly,
the preferred method of defending our Nation. We have got the best-
trained and the best-equipped military in the world. But the decision
on the issue to support and to maintain the Selective Service System is
a decision that should be made by the Department of Defense. I believe
that this is a small price to pay to make sure that we have this
ability should we ever need it.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Coffman).
Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the DeFazio amendment,
and I am a proud cosponsor of the amendment.
As the gentleman from Oregon mentioned, the draft ended in 1973.
Conscription ended. Then the Selective Service System was put on the
shelf, inactivated, and was only activated when, in a show of resolve,
President Jimmy Carter, in the aftermath of the December 1979 Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan, reinstituted conscription. He reinstituted
signing up for the Selective Service System. I think he suspended wheat
sales to the Soviet Union as well as our participation in the Olympic
Games, which were scheduled to be in Moscow.
It has never been used. During the height of Iraq and Afghanistan,
there has never even been a discussion within the Department of
Defense, even with personnel shortages, about using the draft.
In a recent study by the Army Recruiting Command, it determined that
something like 75 percent of young people--military-aged people--are
ineligible to serve in the United States Army. Either they are
overweight; they don't have high school or have high school but don't
have a high enough score on the Armed Forces Entrance Exam; they have
had altercations with the law; or they have drug and alcohol issues.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. COFFMAN. We have extremely high standards today. I think, in my
having served in the United States Army when there was a draft, that
having conscription--having people being forced to serve--compromises
the extraordinary, I think, capability of our military. This is about
putting it back on the shelf, as it was in 1973, and if the President,
as Commander in Chief, ever felt it needed to come off the shelf, he or
she could do so.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
For those who persist in the fantasy that, someday, we will need to
reinstate the draft, this legislation allows the President the
authority to restore funding should he believe that such actions are in
the interest of the national defense. Beyond that, the report,
actually, from 1979, from the Selective Service, itself, said: We do
not have the training capacity of the old days of training, with
broomsticks, the young troops to go into war.
Today, we have a professional military--the best in the world. If you
believe in our military and if you believe in an all-volunteer force,
then you will vote for this amendment. If you want to send a message
that, someday, we are going to conscript young men, involuntarily, to
go into the military, into a training capacity that doesn't exist, and
have hundreds or thousands or millions of bodies, untrained, go into a
massive land war, unlike the way wars are fought today with the
professional military and much more targeted with drones and air
strikes, then vote for this, say that we are going to go back to Korea,
that we are going to go back to the way it was in World War II, that we
are going to go back to World War I.
If you believe we have entered into the 21st century and that we are
never going to involuntarily conscript Americans to serve in the
military again, the all-volunteer force is the best in the world. Yes,
it needs to be the best trained and the best equipped. Let's focus on
that. Let's spend $23 million on their training and on their equipment
instead of wasting it on an obsolete system that penalizes young
Americans under felony penalty if they don't register and register
their changes of address. By the way, the Selective Service doesn't
know where most people live. Their computers are obsolete, and they
don't work.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I just want to note that the overwhelming
``fantasy'' that the gentleman refers to was shared on a bipartisan
basis, overwhelmingly, in rejecting this amendment a couple of years
ago. This is not a brand new idea. And we appreciate the gentleman's
bringing it before us, but in the military, they talk about things that
you don't know. You do not know what you do not know.
I believe that this is a small price to pay to make sure that we have
this ability, should a crisis occur, in that we might save thousands--
if not millions--of lives.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. 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 Oregon will
be postponed.
{time} 2030
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Grayson
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in House Report 114-639.
Mr. GRAYSON. 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 613.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Grayson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chair, this language strikes the anti-abortion
language in section 613, which restricts abortion coverage for those
who participate in Federal Employees Health Benefit plans. In other
words, Federal employees.
Singling out abortion care and requiring its exclusion from health
insurance plans is discrimination. Federal employees commit their lives
to public service, and they should not be penalized because of the
source of their health insurance and who their employer happens to be.
Government employees contribute to the cost of their
[[Page H4428]]
coverage, and they pay their out-of-pocket expenses. They deserve the
same benefits and access to comprehensive health care as those in the
private sector. This ban separates public servants from private-sector
employees and treats them as unequal.
All Federal employees should have equal access to health care that
other employees receive in the private sector. Here, we are saying that
one employer, the government, is free to deny care to its employees,
something that we would generally not allow in the private sector.
We are also prohibiting these Federal employee plans from covering
abortions, and that constitutes political interference in a woman's
personal decisionmaking. Restricting abortion coverage in these plans
is a bad policy that harms women. Sometime during the course of
pregnancy, for instance, one might find out that the fetus is abnormal.
That is a personal decision whether to terminate that pregnancy or not
that should be made personally, and the government should not weigh in
in one way or another in making that decision.
If a woman does decide--either because her life is threatened or
because of fetal abnormalities or some other reason--that she wants to
terminate the pregnancy, she could be looking at tens of thousands or
hundreds of thousands of dollars of unreimbursed health expenses. We
shouldn't pretend that we are covering people's health coverage needs
while allowing them to fall subject to a bill that could be tens or
hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Now, lifting this ban does not mandate abortion coverage. It simply
permits the Federal Employees Health Benefit plans to cover abortions.
I think we need to get to the heart of the matter, which is this: the
most fundamental right of anyone, a man or a woman, is the right to
control your own body, and that includes a womb. If liberty means
anything, if freedom means anything, that is what it means. That is
true for me and it is true for you. It is true for men, and it is true
for women; and that includes pregnant women and women who happen to be
Federal employees.
Abortion has to be fully legal or women are not fully equal. I urge
my colleagues to support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith), one of the great champions of innocent unborn life.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Florida for his extraordinary leadership on this bill and on the life
issue.
Mr. Chairman, on June 8, 1983, 33 years ago, I sponsored the
amendment to ban the use of taxpayer funds to subsidize abortion in the
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The Smith amendment passed
226 to 182, and has been in effect almost continuously ever since.
Today, more Americans oppose taxpayer funding for abortions than ever
before. A January 2016 Marist poll found a supermajority of Americans--
68 percent of all respondents and 69 percent of women--oppose taxpayer
funding for abortion.
Why do Americans continue to trend pro-life?
First, the pro-life movement is comprised of millions of selfless,
compassionate human rights defenders, women and men, filled with deep
faith in God, hope, love, and indomitable spirits.
Second, post-abortive women are silent no more, courageously speaking
to the extraordinary harm they have endured from abortion. As the NGO
Feminists for Life have reminded us, women deserve better than
abortion.
Third, sonograms, ultrasound imagery, is a game changer. Countless
parents have watched with awe and wonder as their child appears on the
screen, moving about, even sucking his or her thumb. First baby
pictures today are of the child before birth. That first picture is a
powerful confirmation that their child exists and that they are parents
now and that birth is merely an event in the life of a child.
Ultrasounds have also been an effective tool in helping to diagnose
and to treat disease and disability for these young patients. Some
unborn children indeed are the youngest patients in need of benign
interventions.
I would note to my colleagues that for the past several years, there
has been a global movement called The First Thousand Days of Life,
providing for nutrition and supplementation to bolster the health and
wellness of children and women from conception until the second
birthday. The consequences of caring for children before birth is
absolutely revolutionary and breathtaking, boosting their immunity as
well as their cognitive abilities throughout their entire lifetime.
Abortion, on the other hand, is the polar opposite of life. It is
violence against children. Abortion methods dismember, decapitate, or
chemically poison innocent babies to death. Later-term abortions
inflict excruciating pain and suffering on the child, especially during
the dismemberment procedure.
The Grayson amendment would reverse over three decades of prudent
public policy that ensures that taxpayers do not subsidize abortion. I
would note parenthetically that the law governing the Federal Employees
Health Benefits Program specifies that the Federal Government
contributes at least 72 percent of the average premium cost for all
plans, so it is taxpayers who are footing the bill.
Vote ``no'' on the Grayson amendment.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield for a moment to my friend from New
Jersey, if he will answer a single question. And the question is this:
Does the gentlemen believe that women who have abortions should be
incarcerated?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Absolutely not. Thank you for the question.
Let me point out that every bill we have brought--the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban, the Born Alive Act, every single piece of legislation
that would seek to protect the lives of unborn children--has a specific
clause that women are held harmless; that there could be no
prosecutions against them.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, again, addressing a
question to the gentleman from New Jersey: If you maintain that
abortion is murder--which is pretty much what you just said--then why
do you not believe that the women who have these abortions should be
incarcerated? Why do you not believe that?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GRAYSON. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, it is the gentleman who called
it murder. I call it the taking of human life.
We need to hold the abortionists liable. We, in the pro-life
movement, look at the women as co-victims. I have worked--I say to my
friend from Florida--with well over 100 women, many of whom were part
of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, all of whom have had
abortions, including the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Alvita King,
who has had two abortions. She has said very, very strongly that in
every abortion there was a co-victim, and that is the mother.
Mr. GRAYSON. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate my friend from New
Jersey answering those questions.
I would maintain that the simpler answer is that abortion is not
murder; it is not the taking of human life.
I yield 1 minute to my colleague from New York (Mr. Serrano).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 45 seconds
remaining.
Mr. GRAYSON. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Serrano).
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, the problem with this argument is that it has
become an abortion argument and it isn't a debate about abortion. It is
an issue about a doctor and a woman and her healthcare decision and an
insurance where one person can have certain rights under their
insurance plan and another one cannot.
Let's remember that there are some Federal dollars in this plan, but
there are also personal dollars, but no rights according to some
people.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, it is very clear that our policy is the
taxpayers' fund should not be used to fund abortions and, therefore, we
have continued this prohibition. Not only has
[[Page H4429]]
this prohibition been in place since 1981, it was also requested by the
administration as part of its 2017 budget request.
So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Grayson Amendment Number
12.
This amendment would finally remove a longstanding, harmful
appropriations rider that deprives federal employees of coverage for
the full range of reproductive health care.
As co-chair of the House Pro-Choice Caucus, I'm routinely dismayed by
the repeated inclusion in legislation of divisive riders that interfere
with women's health care decisions. Why must important bills that get
the people's business done be misused by politicians to limit women's
reproductive rights and choices?
For too long, Congress has interfered with women's health decisions
through bans on insurance coverage for reproductive health care. I
applaud Mr. Grayson for taking action to lift these unnecessary and
harmful restrictions in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
However, these restrictions exist in many other places throughout
federal law. We should do away with them all.
Every single year, my Republican colleagues feel the need to include
provisions attacking women's health in the Financial Services
Appropriations bill. This year is no exception. As usual this year's
bill is riddled with such provisions.
But this time, Republicans have taken it one step further. An
amendment filed by Rep. Palmer has also been made in order on this
appropriations bill.
Mr. Palmer's amendment would prohibit Washington, DC from enforcing
the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act, which the city enacted
to help protect women and their families from employment discrimination
based on reproductive health choices.
Preventing DC from enforcing this law is egregious. It is beyond
inappropriate for Congress to strike down state laws that help protect
women from employment discrimination based on choices such as using
birth control, undergoing in vitro fertilization, or having an
abortion.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GRAYSON. 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 Florida will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Kildee
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13
printed in House Report 114-639.
Mr. KILDEE. 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 625.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chair, this amendment offered by myself and my
colleagues would strike section 625 of this bill and, if adopted, would
allow the SEC to write regulations requiring corporations to disclose
their political contributions. This amendment would not require the SEC
to regulate political disclosure. It would simply allow them to do so
if they deem it something that would be necessary or important so that
investors and citizens and voters know where the tens of thousands,
hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars spent by corporations are
going to affect the outcome of elections.
The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United has opened the
floodgate for corporations to spend an unlimited amount of money,
affecting our democracy in ways that we, as citizens, can never find
out about, that we can never determine, dramatically affecting the
outcome of elections, often spending more money than any other
candidate or any other political party.
Knowledge is power, and the American citizens have the right to know
how corporations are spending money to affect the outcome of elections.
This amendment would allow the SEC to write regulations that would
allow for that kind of disclosure.
This democracy should not be for sale. Transparency is the key. The
citizens of this country have a right to know and to understand how
money is affecting the outcome of their elections.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, this is the law today that he is trying
to remove.
The SEC doesn't need to be engaged in politically charged, unmandated
rulemakings. The language included in this bill just keeps the SEC on
track. It prevents them from developing or proposing or issuing a rule
that would require disclosure of political contributions in the SEC
filings.
Let's call the amendment what it is. It is an end-run around the
Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.
The SEC has got bigger priorities to focus on, and thank goodness
they have been focusing on those. They have been going after people
that profit from insider trading. They are trying to stop the fraud
that goes on. And the bill continues to support the SEC doing its job;
protecting investors, encouraging capital formation.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Deutch).
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chair, this is a simple amendment. It strikes a
highly partisan policy rider that would bar the SEC from requiring
disclosure of political spending by corporations.
Since the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, we have seen
an explosive growth in corporate political spending. Even under the
twisted interpretation of the First Amendment in that case, disclosure
would at least mean some level of accountability.
In that case, the Court decided that corporations get the same free
speech rights as people; and now these corporations are taking
advantage by funneling unlimited funds through tax-exempt groups to
secretly influence our elections.
Section 625 of this bill would completely bar any funds from being
used to develop a rule to require disclosure of political contributions
to tax-exempt organizations. This represents a behind-closed-doors
trick to block the administration from requiring corporations to simply
stand behind their political spending.
Corporations shouldn't be able to hide their political motivations
behind complex webs of so-called social welfare groups, not when these
groups are little more than P.O. boxes in Virginia.
We have to get money out of politics, but until then, let's have some
disclosure.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
{time} 2045
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).
Mr. SARBANES. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Mr. Kildee for this amendment, which
promotes more accountability and transparency and disclosure at a time
when that is what people are asking for. They want to know where the
secret money is coming from, and they want to know where it is going.
They say sunshine is the best disinfectant, but yet again, this House
is acting to shield corporate and big money donors from the light of
day.
It is this Russian doll technique. You open the Russian doll because
you think you can see what is inside, and then when you open it, there
is another doll inside; and then you open that one, and there is
another doll inside that one. You can never get to where the money
really is. You can never find out who is actually bankrolling these
huge expenditures, these TV commercials
[[Page H4430]]
that are coming in, this megaphone that is taking over our politics
from secret interests.
All Mr. Kildee is seeking is that we provide the transparency, the
disclosure, the information that the American people are seeking. We
need more of that. We need more disclosure. We need more
accountability. We need more transparency. That is what the American
people are demanding. That is what this amendment would do. Let's pass
this amendment and ensure that accountability in our politics.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member of the subcommittee.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, if I didn't know better, I would be
confused. On one hand, we cut money from the SEC because they shouldn't
be the cop on Wall Street that it should be, but then on the other hand
we want to continue to cut money and prevent them from telling us where
the other money is coming from, which is the one that funds elections.
What is the problem with the American people knowing that such a
candidate or such a committee got money from such a corporation? I want
to know. They want to know.
So, sure, our ratings are low. You know why our ratings are low?
Because there is so much secrecy in what we do, and it shouldn't be.
This is a great amendment, and it is one that should be accepted on a
bipartisan basis.
Let's stop trying to tell the SEC that they don't exist. They exist.
And I will tell you one last point that is very short. When I was
chairman of this committee, they came to us and said: We don't want any
more money; we are fine. Then we found out years later why they didn't
want more money, because they didn't want to enforce anything. We fell
through into a big hole.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, fundamentally, this amendment is simply
about the right of the American people to know who is influencing the
elections that determine the leadership in this country.
This legislation, as presented, would actually prohibit the SEC from
requiring that kind of disclosure. The American people deserve a
democracy that is transparent. This amendment would provide the SEC
with the tools to make rules that would provide that. I urge my
colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out earlier, this is
existing law. This is the law today, and they want to strike that law.
I would encourage them to look up something called the Federal Election
Commission. That is a place where people disclose their political
contributions, and it is right there for everybody to see. So they want
to take existing law that says that is not the role of the SEC; it is
the role of the FEC. They want to change the law that basically, today,
says the SEC has got better things to do than require----
Mr. KILDEE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRENSHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KILDEE. Are the corporate contributions made under the provisions
that we are speaking of disclosed to the Federal Election Commission?
Corporate spending under the Citizens United case, for example; are
those disclosed by corporations to the FEC?
Mr. CRENSHAW. Reclaiming my time, as I pointed out, I understand this
is an end run about that lawsuit, but there is disclosure that takes
place. And again, the law today that was added last year, part of the
omnibus bill, the SEC ought to be trying to find tax cheats, they ought
to be trying to find people doing insider trading, and, quite frankly,
they really don't have it high on their list of things to do because
right now the law prevents them from doing that.
I think it is just better to keep the law just like it is today.
Reject this amendment, and vote ``no.''
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KILDEE. 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 Michigan
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Ms. Eshoo
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14
printed in House Report 114-639.
Ms. ESHOO. 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:
Strike section 632.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Eshoo) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. ESHOO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes what I believe is an unnecessary
provision in the bill that would block the FCC's net neutrality rules
until the court took final action to determine their legality. The
provision my amendment strikes was written before the court announced
its decision.
On Tuesday, June 14, the Federal appeals court issued its long-
awaited ruling in this case, and the decision could not be clearer. The
court fully upheld the FCC's net neutrality rules, and that is why I am
offering the amendment. It found that the FCC acted within its
authority, acted consistent with Supreme Court precedent, consistent
with the Administrative Procedure Act, and consistent with the
Constitution. Every issue raised by opponents in court was rejected,
whether it was procedural or substantive.
Following this clear and decisive ruling, there is simply no reason
for Congress to be blocking the FCC's rules. The courts have spoken,
and legal scholars agree.
I think the American people also spoke very clearly. Over 4 million
offered their comments by filing them at the FCC during the rulemaking
process, and the vast majority of them were in support of strong rules.
This level of public input broke records at the FCC.
The late Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in the 2005 Brand X case
reflects the same commonsense view the American people expressed in
their public comments. Justice Scalia said: ``After all is said and
done, after all the regulatory cant has been translated, and the smoke
of agency expertise blown away, it remains perfectly clear that someone
who sells cable-modem service is `offering' telecommunications.''
So Congress need not block these rules now in the hopes that an
appeal to the Supreme Court will overturn this clear ruling, and that
is why I am offering the amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it
and strike what now is an unnecessary section from the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, this language is merely a legislative
stay on the FCC's net neutrality order, and it is the same language
that was in last year's bill. This net neutrality rule was very, very
controversial. She mentioned there were 4 million, I guess, inputs
under the proposed rule. Some were for, some were against.
Let me be clear. There is no dispute about the desire for a free and
open Internet, but I think, when you look at the consumers, you look at
the businesses, you look at government, they have benefited greatly
from the absence of regulatory restrictions on the Internet. At the end
of the day, this is an issue for the courts to decide.
Even in light of recent circuit court decisions, litigation on this
rule is no way finished. I think it is just fair in a controversial
rule like this to wait until its legality has been finally determined
before we implement the rule. So I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H4431]]
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman really offers a lack of
response to the amendment because the Federal appeals court issued a
very broad decision, and it really couldn't be clearer. I understand
that this language was written before the court came out with its
decision, but now that the court has, I think that this language really
doesn't mean anything unless the majority simply wants to leapfrog over
the decision, even though they don't like it and have fought it.
I just don't think that this belongs in the legislation anymore. It
was put in before the court spoke, and I believe that it is appropriate
to remove the language now.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SERRANO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. It strikes section
632 of the underlying bill, a controversial FCC rider that prohibits
the FCC from implementing its order on net neutrality until three court
cases are resolved.
Yet again the majority is trying to hijack the regulatory process for
its own ends. This rule went into effect almost a year ago, and none of
the fears that were raised about the net neutrality rule have come to
pass. There has been increased investment and profits for Internet
service providers. There is no reason to continue the crusade against
this rule.
Although section 632 sets out to only last as long as the lawsuits
are ongoing, the actual text encourages the plaintiffs in these
lawsuits to do everything in their power to delay a resolution to the
cases in question.
Four million people wrote in about the rule that this committee is
now trying to stop. The normal process of objecting to a rule would be
that you go to the courts, and that already happened here. The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied a petition
by several telecom companies and industry trade groups to delay
implementation of the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, net
neutrality rules.
Organizations like the Consumers Union have pointed out that there
was plenty of public notice with the net neutrality rules. There was an
initial notice of proposed rulemaking, an extensive description
released before the FCC vote, and waiting 2 months after the Federal
Register publication before the rules took effect. Throwing in an
additional hurdle departs from established rulemaking practice and
simply isn't needed.
Ironically, just last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia upheld the FCC's 2015 net neutrality rules in
these cases, giving the agency unquestionable authority to regulate the
Internet.
{time} 2100
Of course, they could still appeal, which demonstrates how harmful
this rider is. It would delay net neutrality while the court process
plays out.
Blocking net neutrality means blocking an open Internet. It allows a
broadband provider to block any Web site or application it wants and
would allow pay-for-priority schemes, where all traffic is slowed down
to make the way for the content of deep-pocketed giants who can pay for
preferential treatment.
It seems to me that Republicans are trying to give corporations more
freedom and options to do whatever they want while trying to place more
restrictions and burdens on individual citizens, like denying them
access to a free and open Internet. Section 632 is harmful to our
economy, our democracy, and should be stricken from the bill.
I thank the gentlewoman for her amendment, and I urge support for the
amendment.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. ESHOO. I will close with these comments, Mr. Chairman. I often
say to my constituents that we love our history once it has been made,
but we don't always appreciate it when we are making history.
I think that this issue relative to the Internet and its entire
future will be now, because of the court decision, totally
uninterrupted. No company, no ISP, not anyone can block or throttle
online traffic or have paid prioritization agreements that would create
fast and slow lanes.
Imagine if private companies owned all of the freeways in California,
and every time there is an exit or an on ramp, you end up having to
pay--pay for something.
The court made very, very clear that the way the FCC drew up its
rules is for the protection of the consumer, which is at the heart of
this. I think that June 14 was a day of great history made in our
country and for the betterment of it, for consumers, for competition,
and for our national economy.
It is with all of that in mind that I offer this amendment, and I
urge my colleagues to support it. I think it makes sense. What was in
the bill was drawn up before the court spoke. The court has spoken very
clearly.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, we are not here to debate the merits of
the net neutrality rule. Everybody knows how controversial it was.
It has been pointed out there are 4 million objections or supporters.
I don't know how they were split, but there were millions for, millions
against. It just tells you how controversial it is.
So all this provision says is: let's wait until it is finally
resolved. We all know that it is going to end up in the United States
Supreme Court. And once it has been determined yes or no, then the FCC
ought to enforce it. But until that time, it ought to be stayed through
the legislative process. That is what this bill does. That is what the
amendment attempts to undo.
So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. ESHOO. 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 gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Ellison
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15
printed in House Report 114-639.
Mr. ELLISON. 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 143, beginning on line 10, strike section 637.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would repeal an effort to
undermine the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act and an effort to
eliminate consumer protections for some of the country's most
vulnerable borrowers and invite a return to the kind of predatory
mortgage practices that helped fuel the financial crisis of 2008 in the
first place.
The manufactured housing industry is growing and highly profitable.
In fact, according to its trade association, manufactured housing--what
some people might call trailer homes, but actually is accurately called
manufactured housing--is an industry that has recorded shipment
increases in every month since 2014. Manufactured Housing for
Regulatory Reform found that 2014 marked the fifth consecutive year of
annual industry productions increases.
Even one of the world's most respected investors, Berkshire Hathaway
chairman Warren Buffet, has been touting the profitability of
manufactured housing. In a letter to shareholders, he pointed out that
Clayton
[[Page H4432]]
Homes, Berkshire Hathaway's profitable manufactured housing business
subsidiary, earned a total of $585 million in 2014, an increase of 34
percent over 2013. This is despite the fact that Dodd-Frank protections
that this bill seeks to roll back were in place in 2014.
Unfortunately, this is the same Clayton Homes that was the subject of
a BuzzFeed and The Seattle Times and Center for Public Integrity
investigation that found that this manufactured housing empire profits
in every way imaginable from producing to selling, to housing, to the
loans that take advantage of vulnerable consumers and leave them with
virtually no way to refinance.
The investigation details a story of disabled Army veteran and
Clayton Homes customer, Dorothy Mansfield. Ms. Mansfield's monthly
income was less than $700, but Clayton approved her for a $60,000, 20-
year loan at more than 10 percent interest. The monthly payment of $673
consumed much of Ms. Mansfield's only income--her Army disability
benefit--and within 18 months of purchase, she was behind on payments
and Clayton was attempting to foreclose on her home.
This is precisely the kind of predatory practices that Dodd-Frank was
enacted to stop. But today, we consider legislation that would pave the
way for its return.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and oppose the
predatory manufactured housing loans.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CRENSHAW. First, just let me say that the provision the gentleman
would like to strike is a provision that gives every American the
opportunity to pursue what we call the American Dream--that of home
ownership.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann)
to tell us a little bit more about why we ought to oppose this
amendment.
Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment, and I thank the chairman for the opportunity to address
that.
Mr. Chair, I represent a wonderful area of east Tennessee. A lot of
folks purchase manufactured homes. It is a great American industry. It
is a booming industry. It is a good industry. But more important than
that, that great industry is the great American Dream--that dream of
home ownership.
Manufactured homes offer an opportunity to men and women, many times,
to purchase their first home. These are not the most affluent people in
America. These are people who are pursuing the American Dream--or part
of it--of home ownership.
What this amendment seeks to do is unfortunate. That is why I oppose
it. There is no more fervent opponent to the Dodd-Frank rule in this
house than me, but it protects the Dodd-Frank provisions that were in
the law.
This does not violate Dodd-Frank. This is more of an indication of
how a bad law spews more bad law. And what this does is it hurts those
precious consumers, those poor Americans who are trying desperately to
get credit. What it does, Mr. Chairman, is create a situation where, if
someone is a loan originator or a salesman, it makes them subject to
the constrictions of Dodd-Frank. This was never intended on its worst
day--and there are many worst days of Dodd-Frank--to do this.
I ask this House to reject the gentleman's amendment, uphold a great
American industry--the manufactured home industry--but even more
importantly, to uphold that special precious American Dream, that
chance of home ownership.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Woodall). The gentleman from Minnesota has 2\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, let me just be clear. This is not a matter
of whether manufactured housing is good or bad. Manufactured housing is
obviously an option that Americans should have available to them.
This amendment is about protecting consumers and making sure that
they don't get hit on all sides of the bargain: the sale of the home,
the loan, the origination, the insurance, and all over. It is making
sure that the mortgage originator is operating in the interests that
they are supposed to operate in--under the definition of loan
originator or mortgage originator.
This requirement prevents salespeople from being incentivized to
steer buyers to higher-cost loans. It is one thing to stand up and say:
Hey, we are trying to help people reach the great American Dream, but
it is quite another to say: Hey, look, yeah, great American Dream at a
fair and affordable price, great American Dream at a price that people
can actually afford and that is fair to the consumer.
So that is what we are talking about here. I absolutely believe that
if people want to live in manufactured housing, they should. Let me
tell you, in my district in Minnesota, I have a lot of people who live
in manufactured housing.
There are a lot of success stories, too, Mr. Chairman. I can tell you
about people who lived on property owned by somebody else. They bought
that property that their manufactured homes were on and now it is
theirs. And now they are living in much more security than they ever
have. And they got a good deal.
They need people who are going to be looking out after them. This is
a very, very important issue, because a lot of these folks don't have
that many advocates looking out for them. We should make sure that the
requirement that prevents salespeople from being able to steer buyers
to high-cost loans is something that we should not tolerate. It robs
families who don't have that many resources of the precious resources
they have.
So this is another one looking out for consumers, affirming people's
right to live in a manufactured home, if that is choice, recognizing
that that is a good choice for many families, but at the same time
recognizing that these same families need to be treated fairly.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ``yes'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman really wants people to
have access to manufactured housing, then I don't think he would be
proposing this amendment. If you adopt this amendment and take out the
language we have in the bill, then you are going to limit access to
quality, affordable housing for an awful lot of people.
That is what happens when the CFPB tries to overregulate an industry.
What happens is they limit access to financing and you limit options
for manufactured housing.
You have got to understand that these new regulations don't reflect
the unique nature of manufactured homes; the sales process, the
lenders. The lenders can't offer small balanced loans anymore because
of these regulations, and that is what they used to purchase affordable
housing.
So if you really care about folks and you want them to be able to
access the housing market, if you really want them to be able to pursue
the American Dream of owning a home someday, then you will reject this
amendment and allow the provision that we put in this bill to stand.
Let me once again urge that my colleagues vote ``no'' on 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 Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ELLISON. 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 Minnesota
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Ellison
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16
printed in House Report 114-639.
Mr. ELLISON. 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 143, beginning on line 21, strike section 638.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
[[Page H4433]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, this is another amendment protecting
consumers in manufactured housing. It strikes section 638.
Section 638 weakens rules protecting buyers of mobile homes--or
manufactured homes--from being sold products that can ruin them
financially. It strikes language that prevents staff at the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau from protecting buyers of manufactured
homes from high-cost financing.
New manufactured homes are of good quality. However, the financing of
these homes has a long and sordid history of abuse.
If a site-built homeowner can get a mortgage for 5 percent, why
should a manufactured home buyer need to pay 15 percent?
If a home buyer is offered a loan of 15 percent, I think they should
receive counseling that lower-cost options might be available.
Two years ago, I wrote letters to the heads of the major financing
firms for manufactured homes. I asked them for information on their
default rates.
{time} 2115
Why should a buyer of a manufactured home be charged three times more
than a buyer of a site-built home?
I was told by their trade association that they could share that
information, but only if I promised confidentiality. I declined that
because I wasn't going to be an aider and abetter to their conspiracy.
This is a paradox. The manufactured housing industry wants permission
to charge consumers 10 percent above prime, so 14 or 15 percent, but
they are unwilling to say why. But they say it is because that is the
only way to attract lenders to the market.
Why do they need to charge manufactured home buyers an interest rate
three times as high as that of other buyers? Manufactured home buyers
deserve financing that lets them build equity in their home.
Last year, the Seattle Times ran a series of articles on how the
financing industry used to prey on manufactured home buyers. I am glad
the Democrats created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Democrats gave the CFPB the authority to protect home buyers, including
17 million people who live in manufactured homes.
We have already voted on the majority's goal to stop the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau from protecting manufactured home buyers.
Last year, the majority brought forward H.R. 650 with this same
language; 162 Members voted against it. President Obama issued a veto
threat.
The majority needs 290 votes to override a veto, and the bill only
got 263. So people who want to sell buyers high fee and interest loans
are trying another tack: authorizing in an appropriations bill. We
should oppose their efforts on procedural grounds, but also on
principle grounds.
I urge support of my amendment because absolutely everybody should
get a fair shot at being able to get a piece of the American Dream,
which is to own their own home, including a manufactured home. But they
shouldn't have to pay three times what site-built homeowners have to
pay just because they might be in a slightly different situation.
I know that colleagues might say: Oh, we are just standing up for the
American Dream here; we are just trying to make sure people can get
into a home.
Well, at what price, Mr. Chairman? At what price? Three times what
average site-built homeowners have to pay? Three times what your
average mortgage holder of a site-built home might pay? I don't think
that is right.
I think that we should strike the language in section 638 and should
stand up for consumer justice for those people who my colleagues agree
are just trying to get a piece of the American Dream. They are just
trying to get a piece of the American Dream; but, as they are doing so,
there are some mortgage lenders, some lenders that are taking money out
of their pockets as they are trying do that. I think the Congress of
the United States should stand with those consumers and not with the
big companies that make out so much, that make such an exorbitant
profit at their expense.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, we just had a discussion earlier about
access to affordable housing, manufactured homes. Manufactured homes
are a little bit different, and a lot of times folks that can't afford
a house try to buy a manufactured home. And if you put some of these
provisions that the CFPB has tried to put in, what you do, you end up
denying those folks access to that kind of housing, and I think that is
wrong.
I urge Members to reject this amendment like they rejected the last
amendment.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann).
Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman
from Minnesota's amendment, and I thank the chairman for this time.
Perhaps the only thing the gentleman from Minnesota and I agree on is
that this amendment is akin to his first amendment which I vigorously
opposed and I asked the House to oppose.
Let me reiterate. The manufactured housing industry is a great
American industry. The dream of owning a home is part of the American
Dream. Manufactured housing offers an opportunity to those who are less
affluent to get part of that American Dream, to buy a house.
Now, what has happened--and again, Dodd-Frank itself, a law which, if
I was in this House, I would have voted against. I wasn't here then,
but I have vigorously opposed since then--Dodd-Frank actually allows
what this gentleman is trying to oppose with his amendment.
So as bad as this law is, and as bad as the law that has come from
this very bad law is, and this amendment is indicative of that, I want
to talk about what happens when we do this.
This is a miscalculation in a formula by those proponents of the
rules of Dodd-Frank, and what it does, it scares away lenders. It
scares away those who want to give credit because it opens them up to
liability.
Therefore, what does it do? It squeezes the poor American consumer
and deprives them of the opportunity to get credit; therefore, it
deprives them of the opportunity to get a home; therefore, it deprives
them of a part of the American Dream.
If the gentleman would listen to me, I have seen this. Who will
profit? Those who are vultures, who actually have capital, who have
cash, who are liquid.
When these mobile homes now will not sell, there will be a glut on
the market, and what will happen? They will swoop in, and those people
who want to see their precious home, their first home, appreciate in
value, now it will depreciate in value, and they will be harmed.
This is a perfect example of government overreach. Dodd-Frank is a
bad law, and this is an attempt to try to construe Dodd-Frank with CFPB
rules that are detrimental to the American consumer.
So do not let it hurt the American Dream. Do not let it hurt this
great American industry. I respectfully urge a ``no'' vote on this
gentleman's amendment.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has 45 seconds
remaining.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, the manufactured home industry is a
growing industry that is highly profitable. There are loans to be had
in this space. There is no need to allow consumers to have to pay three
times--three times--what people pay for a mortgage for a site-built
home. This is just ringing the dinner bell on people who already are
economically vulnerable.
I demanded, Mr. Chairman, information that might justify these higher
interest rates for manufactured home buyers, and no information was
forthcoming because there is none. This is just a chance to take
advantage of people who don't have as much money as some other people.
So American Dream, by all means; consumer predation, no way. I urge a
``yes'' vote.
[[Page H4434]]
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, just finally, let me say once again, we
all appreciate the effort that we have to protect consumers. But you
can go so far as basically to regulate people out of the opportunity to
own a home, and that is what is happening with this overzealous
consumer protection agency, and all we are trying to do is bring some
common sense back into that.
So I would urge folks to reject this amendment. Leave the bill as it
is, providing an opportunity for people who maybe can't own a great big
house, but they can buy a manufactured home that might be less
expensive. It might incur a little more risk since it is a mobile home,
to a certain extent.
Take all that into consideration, and leave the bill as it is. Reject
this amendment. I urge people to vote ``no.''
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr ELLISON. 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 Minnesota
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 17 Offered by Ms. Sewell of Alabama
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17
printed in House Report 114-639.
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. 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 144, beginning on line 12, strike section 639.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentlewoman
from Alabama (Ms. Sewell) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Alabama.
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the
CFPB's recent efforts to rein in predatory practices utilized by payday
lenders across this country.
I am opposed to any congressional efforts to weaken or prohibit
regulations of these actors. That is why I have offered an amendment
striking section 639 of the underlying bill, which prohibits funds from
being used by the CFPB to enforce any regulations or rules with respect
to payday loans, vehicle title loans, or other similar loans during the
fiscal year 2017.
I am proud to be joined by my colleagues, Representatives Waters,
Ellison, and Hinojosa, in offering this simple yet critically important
amendment.
President Obama's visit to Birmingham, Alabama, in the heart of my
district in March 2015 to announce CFPB's efforts to address predatory
lending practices was something that was very important to my
constituency. During his speech, he noted that there were four times as
many payday lenders in Alabama as there were McDonald's. Additionally,
there are more title loan lenders per capita in Alabama than any other
State.
This stark contrast not only illustrates the pervasiveness of this
industry participant but, rather, underscores the critical need for
stronger consumer protections to fight against unfair and abusive
lending practices.
Oftentimes, African Americans, Latinos, and other minority
communities are especially disproportionately impacted by the cycle of
long-term debt resulting from payday loans, vehicle title loans, as
well as check advance loans. These lenders target our most vulnerable,
fiscally underserved communities, including low-income and elderly,
while residents with limited access to traditional bank loans or credit
are attracted to promises of easy access to fast cash.
Predatory lending compromises the financial security of millions of
Americans. It is a problem that is too big to ignore, and the CFPB's
efforts to protect these communities should be applauded rather than
restricted.
The CFPB's proposed rules are not unduly burdensome. Rather, the
majority of payday loans and title lenders who do not ask for any proof
of income or whether the borrower has the ability to repay, that, to
me, seems to be commonsense regulation. Lenders should be able to make
loans to those who have the ability to repay, and asking that question
doesn't seem overly burdensome.
Studies show that 69 percent of the borrowers use payday loans to
meet everyday expenses such as rent, bills, medicine, and groceries.
These CFPB rules would require lenders to make sure borrowers can
afford to pay back the loans before giving a loan, in the same way that
traditional banks do when they prepare loans. The payday lending
industry should be subject to the same regulations as traditional banks
when it comes to making sure that people who they are lending money to
have the ability to repay.
The rule would also limit the ability of lenders to access borrowers'
credit account information through automatic debiting if there are not
sufficient funds initially in their checking accounts.
Borrowers should not be at the mercy of predatory lending practices.
CFPB's proposed rules would strengthen consumer protections and make it
harder to prey on vulnerable communities. CFPB's proposed rules have
bipartisan support and empower consumers to make better financial
decisions.
I understand that there are needs for short-term cash and for small-
dollar-amount loans that provide consumers with this necessary access.
I will continue to work with the CFPB and stakeholders to perfect this
rule and create incentives for traditional and responsible lenders to
enter this short-term lending space; however, it is unconscionable for
any Members of this body to support legislation designed to thwart
efforts to protect consumers and the most vulnerable Americans.
I strongly support the adoption of these proposed regulations and
would continue to fight for greater consumer protections. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment which would allow for resources to
be available to the CFPB to enforce these new regulations against
payday lenders. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CRENSHAW. First, just let me say the provision in question that
they are trying to eliminate merely puts a pause on the CFPB's rule
until it submits a detailed report. To tell us other good reasons why
we ought to reject this amendment, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend
from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. I thank the chairman. I thank him for his great work on
this bill that he has produced tonight. And I have enormous respect for
my colleague from Alabama and her concerns.
At risk with this amendment is cutting off access to credit for
millions of Americans. Under the plan the CFPB is considering, not only
would their regulation eliminate small-dollar loans, but it could also
introduce significant new underwriting expenses on every loan. The
result? The very consumers that need the money the most will ultimately
be left in the dark.
Payday lending needs to be studied, deserves to be studied, should be
considered, and carefully considered. Instead, this amendment wants the
CFPB to go full bore, full steam ahead, without having thoughtfully
answered the question: Where will consumers that need these loans go
next?
{time} 2130
That is the deeper, harder issue. Outrage is easy. It is. But the
tough part, indeed, the most important part for us as policymakers is
to make sure that we get this right for those Americans--those millions
of Americans--that actually need short-term lending.
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield 40 seconds to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman.
The way that payday loans work is that they rely on the fact that you
will borrow the money, and then you have
[[Page H4435]]
an exorbitant interest rate, and then you are going to have to borrow
money to repay the last loan plus a fee and the interest rate. You roll
it over and you roll it over, so before you know it, your whole check
is going to pay this loan. No one has ever asked you whether you could
afford it. They just took advantage of your desperate situation.
It makes sense for the CFPB to make sure people don't get caught in
this cycle of debt. It is the way Americans are going to get back to
financial health and not be taken advantage of when they are in a
vulnerable financial state.
There are many alternatives. We need to be exploring those, not just
doing it for payday lending.
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Stivers).
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman for
yielding me time and for his great work on the underlying bill,
including the provisions that are in the bill as we stand.
I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. While I have great
respect for my colleague from Alabama, the language that is proposed
would strip bipartisan language that was inserted into the bill that
merely puts a pause on the CFPB short-term lending rule, and the result
of passing this amendment would hurt millions of consumers having any
access to capital.
In fact, the Independent Community Bankers of America and the
National Credit Union Association--who don't agree on much--recently
wrote a letter to the CFPB voicing their strong opposition to the
current rule that is being proposed because they believe that it will
drive them out of the short-term credit making market and stop them
from serving consumers in their local communities.
In fact, even the CFPB admits that 84 percent of short-term loan
volumes will disappear as a result of this rule. That will leave
millions of Americans without access to money that they might need to
get emergency medical assistance, to pay for unexpected automobile
repairs, or to heat or cool their home. This amendment is a problem.
We need to allow the language in the bill to last. All it does is
require the CFPB to provide documentation for what they are doing and
show where consumers will be able to turn to meet their financial
needs. This is a bipartisan amendment that is in the bill now. We
should reject the Sewell-Waters amendment.
I urge members to vote ``no'' on the amendment and urge them to vote
``yes'' on the underlying bill.
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I think it is
really important that we not reward bad actors. I think that the fact
of the matter is that lots of payday lenders--while access to credit is
critically important, to reward bad behavior is not something that I
think this House should be about, and I ask Members to support this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, nobody wants to reward bad actors. Let me
just say that payday lending today is regulated at the State level. My
home State of Florida has one of the most progressive and effective
small-dollar-lending loan statutes in the country. It has become
somewhat of a national example of the successful compromise between
strong consumer protection and increased access to capital.
So I hope that when the CFPB exercises the pause that we ask for in
this bill, that they will take a look at some of the progressive laws
that are around the country and they can balance that without denying
folks access, as was pointed out.
So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. 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 Alabama
will be postponed.
The Chair understands that amendment No. 18 will not be offered.
Amendment No. 19 Offered by Ms. Norton
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19
printed in House Report 114-639.
Ms. NORTON. 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 193, beginning on line 23, strike section 817.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes the repeal of the District of
Columbia budget autonomy referendum, which allows D.C. to spend its own
local funds, consisting of local taxes and local fees, after a 30-day
congressional review period.
Astonishingly, House Republicans appear to be so afraid of a local
jurisdiction spending its local funds without the approval of a Federal
body, the U.S. Congress, that they will be voting for a second time in
a little over a month to repeal the referendum.
D.C.'s budget autonomy referendum is in effect as I speak. The D.C.
Council recently passed its first local budget pursuant to the
referendum. Therefore, the repeal would be the most significant
reduction in the District of Columbia's authority to govern itself
since Congress granted the city limited home rule in 1973.
Smart lawyers differed about the validity of the referendum when D.C.
enacted it. However, the referendum has been litigated, and there is
only one judicial opinion in effect. In March, the D.C. Superior Court
upheld the referendum, no appeal was filed, and the court ordered D.C.
employees to implement it.
Some House Republicans had either been disguising or simply mistaken
in their opposition to the referendum because they are using legalistic
arguments. For example, the Speaker revealed a reason that some may
oppose the referendum. He said: ``There are real consequences. The D.C.
government wants to use revenues to fund abortions in the District.
House Republicans will not stand for that.''
Well, the Speaker was wrong about the effect of the budget autonomy
referendum. Congress loses nothing under budget autonomy. Congress
retains the authority to legislate on any D.C. matter, including its
local budgets at any time.
Mr. Chairman, this is not statehood, I am here to tell the floor this
evening. The referendum is a modest attempt by a local jurisdiction to
get enough control of its local funds to be able to implement its own
budget soon after it is passed, like other American jurisdictions,
instead of having it caught up into congressional delays that have
nothing to do with our local budget.
Indeed, the riders in this bill prohibiting D.C. from spending its
local funds on marijuana commercialization and abortion services for
low-income women were changed from those in prior appropriations bills
to apply whether or not D.C. has budget autonomy. Historically, D.C.
riders applied only to funds included in appropriations bills because
only appropriations bills authorized D.C. spending. In this bill, the
riders apply to any D.C. funds, however authorized, including those in
budgets passed pursuant to budget autonomy. The riders Congress places
in D.C. appropriations bills will be untouched by budget autonomy.
Local control over local dollars raised by local taxpayers is a
principle much-cited by congressional Republicans and is central, if I
may say so, to the American people form of government. Beyond this core
principle, budget autonomy has practical benefits for the District,
including lower borrowing costs, more accurate revenue and expenditure
forecasts, improved agency operations, and the removal of the threat of
D.C. government shutdowns because the Federal Government shuts down.
D.C.'s budget is bigger than the budgets of 14 States, Mr. Chairman.
It raises more than $7 billion in local
[[Page H4436]]
funds. While D.C. is in a better financial position than most cities
and States, with a rainy-day fund of $2.17 billion on a total budget of
$13.4 billion, budget autonomy would make the district economy even
stronger.
Why would anybody in this House oppose that possibility?
The repeal of the referendum is not only bad policy, it is a blight
on this country's most revered principle--local control.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Florida, the chairman of the committee, for his fine work, for his
friendship, and I just want to say: You will be missed.
I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment. This is
something that we have debated for many, many hours. She knows full
well what is the issue and what is not the issue, Mr. Chairman. I am
here tonight to clear the record once again.
To suggest that this is all just about local control and local budget
autonomy missed the foundational principles of where they have this
limited right in D.C. already. It goes back to our Founding Fathers and
the principles found in the Constitution. It goes back to when this was
debated and actually signed into law where Democrats and Republicans
came together to say that we are going to give D.C. the ability to have
local control over local issues with one major exception, and that
major exception had to do with the appropriation of funds, and truly
the power that rests and resides in this esteemed body.
So to suggest that anything nefarious is happening would be to ignore
not only history, but to ignore debate that has happened in this very
Chamber before.
The gentlewoman from D.C. has offered a number of times a bill to
actually repeal this very right. So to suggest that D.C. automatically
has this right to be able to have budget autonomy would go against
previous arguments that the gentlewoman has made.
So I am here tonight to say that not only am I in strong opposition,
but this is something that we must stand up to for the integrity of
this body and certainly because of the principles that our Founding
Fathers laid at this incredible city that we call our Nation's Capital,
Washington, D.C. It was to preserve it in a way that allowed for this
body to not only manage and appropriate, but to oversee what is the
Nation's city.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, I think Mr. Meadows
said it well. The bill before us right here continues to appropriate
D.C. local funds just like it has been doing for the last 43 years
under Democratic and Republican majorities and Democratic and
Republican administrations. So this bill is no radical departure from
the past.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the gentlewoman's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
{time} 2145
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, when I became chairman of this committee
in the past, I think I was the first chairman ever to say that I wanted
less power rather than more power. The reason I said that was because I
didn't want to oversee the District of Columbia as chairman of the
committee as one overseeing a colony.
For me, that was very important, since I was born in the colony of
Puerto Rico and I now represent the Bronx, New York, in Congress. So it
is very personal for me that I should not do to others what I don't
like people doing to my birthplace.
Let's understand something. This is not a constitutional question any
longer. In my opinion, and I have been saying this for years, this is
about the ability to say that you stand for things that you really
don't stand for in your own districts. So people who can't control the
budget in their district go to the newspapers and say: I am very strong
on controlling spending. And when you ask them where, they say: Oh, in
the District of Columbia.
And then they will tell you: I oppose the needle exchange programs.
And they say: Where? We have one here.
They say: Oh, but I do it in the District of Columbia.
And they say: And I stop women from getting their health services in
order and getting abortions.
They say: But it is legal here.
They say: No, but I did it in the District of Columbia.
What has happened is that D.C. has become this playground for Members
of Congress to say ``I stand strong on these issues,'' when, in fact,
they don't stand strong on those issues. They only stand strong on the
issues of the abuse of the District of Columbia.
And we will continue to do this. We will probably see it again and
again and again. I mean, just look at this, and I don't want her to
feel any worse than she feels already, but she can't vote on her own
amendment today because she doesn't have a vote. The gentleman from
Puerto Rico is in a similar situation. He can't vote on his own
amendment. He sponsored a bill with Mr. Duffy that he can't vote on.
That is the situation we have.
How can we, as the greatest country on Earth--and I don't say that in
jest. I believe it. How can we go and tell countries in Latin America
and the Caribbean and the Middle East to be democratic, to be
supportive of democracy, and then we don't practice it on a place down
the block from us--not down the block, the place where we are situated.
How can we tell Puerto Rico that it can't deal with its own situation
and yet tell Latin America that it must change its ways, and the Middle
East that it must change its ways? We continuously have this
contradiction, and we have to take care of it.
This one is a simple one. This one is they passed a referendum, the
courts spoke, Congress had an opportunity to say something stronger, it
didn't, and now it is trying to come back and make up for it by putting
language in the bill where it doesn't belong.
Please, ladies and gentlemen, think of this vote not as a vote that
can score you points back home, but a vote that can give people in the
District of Columbia the ability to take their own money and spend it
as they see fit, no different than North Carolina, than the Bronx, New
York, or than any other community. Even Florida does it that way, too.
I ask that you support Ms. Norton's amendment. I probably can predict
the outcome of it, but we will continue to fight this fight because it
is right. And the same Constitution that may have said some things
about D.C. that we are expanding on and overusing is the same
Constitution that guarantees all of us the right to govern ourselves
and to govern our resources and to govern how we behave.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
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 gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia will be postponed.
Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Amodei
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20
printed in House Report 114-639.
Mr. AMODEI. 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 the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enforce the requirements in section 316(b)(4)(D)
of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C.
30118(b)(4)(D)) that the solicitation of contributions from
member corporations' stockholders and executive or
administrative personnel, and the families of such
stockholders or personnel, by trade associations must be
separately and specifically approved by the
[[Page H4437]]
member corporation involved prior to such solicitation, and
that such member corporation does not approve any such
solicitation by more than one such trade association in any
calendar year.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman
from Nevada (Mr. Amodei) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit funds being
used by the FEC to enforce the prior approval requirement for trade
associations. The prior approval requirement is the requirement that
trade associations must acquire written approval for Member
corporations to solicit PAC donations. They must further require
stockholders and member companies to only contribute to one trade
association. It is a requirement in the FEC laws that is unique amongst
all PACs only to those that are trade association-related PACs.
So, therefore, the objective of the amendment is to say, out of all
of the PACs out there, we do not need to treat trade associations
specially. We should treat everybody the same, all PACs, including
trade associations. It was a result of a law that was passed in 1978
which, I would submit to you, for the last 38 years, has been a
solution in search of a problem.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. AMODEI. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a very good amendment that
the gentleman has brought before us. It basically levels the playing
field. It is not a partisan issue that is going to impact Democrats or
Republicans. I would join him in urging adoption of this amendment.
Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, to quote a great American Republican,
Ronald Reagan, ``there you go again'' trying not to allow things to be
out in the open when they should be in the open. This is a new effort
to funnel unlimited money into politics.
Current law limits trade association PACs from soliciting member
corporations, their stockholders, and their executives without
permission from the corporation and limits these solicitations to a
single trade association PAC each year. This amendment would remove
these solicitation restrictions and expand the number of solicitations
a stockholder or corporate executive could get.
I don't know about you, but I think most Americans are pretty sick of
politically motivated fundraising emails. This would expand the number
of emails that many people would get.
This is just another way to empower groups, like the Chamber of
Commerce, over the needs of ordinary Americans. That is not right.
Last I heard, most trade association PACs were not lacking for money,
and most corporations, millionaires, and billionaires had plenty of
loopholes in our campaign finance system. But the gentleman from Nevada
seems to think differently on both counts.
This bill is not the right place to change campaign finance law, let
alone to change it in a way that hurts American voters. I oppose the
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, to quote the same Ronald Reagan, ``facts
are stubborn things.'' Let's take a look at the facts here.
Trade associations may give 2-1 to Republicans, since we brought up
the P word for politics; however, the ones that aren't regulated, which
are labor PACs, give 9-1 to Democrats. We are not asking you to pick
one or the other; we are asking you to treat them all the same.
Oh, and by the way, on this very floor earlier tonight, I believe
there was some discussion about we are not hiding anything. If you want
to see who gave to whom, you go to the FEC Web site. So it is not a
question of are we hiding something.
I want to just give you a couple of more stubborn things, and then I
will reserve.
The top 20 PACs in the 2014 cycle were all outside the prior approval
rule. The top three are EMILY's List, SEIU, and the National Rifle
Association. This is probably the first time those three outfits have
been mentioned in the same sentence, but they are not required to do
this.
By the way, Independent Electrical Contractors and the Rural
Broadband Association should enjoy the same First Amendment rights to
participate, which are now prohibited by this rule.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think my Reagan quote was
better than the other Reagan quote, and I stand by that comment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, I will concede the point that maybe your
Reagan quote was better, and I want to welcome you to the Reagan quote
club. We are glad to have you on board.
Let me just say this. This seeks a level playing field. I think we
have a 38-year history. I provided some facts that I think are
relevant. Nobody is seeking advantage here. It is to treat everybody
the same. I believe the word is the E word, which is equality.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I think that this is one of those
opportunities to insert language into an appropriations bill that
doesn't belong there.
I think the gentleman, who is a very nice guy, should rethink it.
Maybe he can invite us all to his home State and we can discuss it at
length, or at least to the chairman's State and we can discuss it at
length, or to the Bronx to a Yankee game and we can discuss it at
length.
But I think that we are spending too much time here putting things in
this bill that don't belong in this bill. And we are reaching a point
where we may never again see what I saw when I got here, which is the
ability to see a bill stand alone and pass and get signed by the
President, or, rather, what we have now where we get these omnibus
bills or these continuing resolutions.
We should look at that. We should look at what we are doing to the
committee, what we are doing to ourselves, and what we are doing to the
Nation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SERRANO. 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 Nevada will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21
printed in House Report 114-639.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. 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 the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce any of the rules
proposed pursuant to section 222 of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 222) and other statutory provisions in the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that was adopted by the Federal
Communications Commission on March 31, 2016 (FCC 16-39).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentlewoman
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds
made available by the act from being used to implement, administer, or
enforce any of the rules proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
adopted by the FCC on March 31, 2016. That is order FEC 16-39. It is
intended to regulate ISP consumer privacy obligations.
{time} 2200
Mr. Chair, there are two problems with the FCC's actions that warrant
a delay in the adoption of rules by the agency.
[[Page H4438]]
First, the FCC's proposed rules are extreme and go well beyond
anything they should be doing in this space, and it is a bipartisan
concern. In May, Democrats Bobby Rush, Gene Green, and Kurt Schrader
joined several Republicans in a letter to all of the FCC Commissioners
and voiced strong concerns that the FCC's proposed privacy rulemaking
``intends to go well beyond'' the traditional framework that has
guarded consumers from data practices of Internet service providers and
``ill-serves consumers who seek and expect consistency in how their
personal data is protected.''
The FTC has traditionally been our government's sole Internet privacy
regulator. A dual privacy enforcement model will create confusion
within the existing Internet ecosystem. The FCC simply doesn't have the
requisite technical expertise to regulate privacy.
Former FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright testified before the House
Judiciary Committee that the FTC has ``unique expertise'' in
``enforcing broadband service providers' obligations to protect the
privacy and security of consumer data.''
The FCC's proposed rule would create economic harm. Former FTC
Commissioner Joshua Wright, a GMU economist, recently said that there
has been no economic analysis on the rule's impact. He said, ``That's a
bad thing, to be clear.''
Let me tell you something. The fact that we have an agency that is
not studying and working on the economic impact and reviewing what this
is going to do to the economy is absolutely unbelievable, especially
when you look at the fact that the FCC does not have the authority and
expertise to move into privacy. That is the FTC's domain and a place
where they work. This new rule has caused the FTC to bring forward two
dozen additional questions; the stakeholders have proposed 500
questions; and the rule is a 147-page rule.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, Americans overwhelmingly agree that online
privacy is a fundamental right. According to the Pew Research Center, a
large majority of Americans wants the government to do more to protect
their privacy. Consumers want a voice in how their data is shared and
sold. Despite this loud cry from the American people that we in
Congress do more, this amendment would do less. It would make it harder
for consumers to decide how their data is treated.
Let me reread the amendment:
``None of the funds made available by this Act can be used to
implement, administer, or enforce any of the rules proposed pursuant to
section 222 of the Communications Act.''
These are privacy protection rules. These are rules that are meant to
protect consumers' privacy. If this amendment becomes law, consumers
will have little or no choice as to how their Internet service
providers sell our most personal data.
We need strong rules to protect consumers' most sensitive
information, and we need those rules to be enforced. American consumers
need to choose for themselves whether their locations, their search
histories, or their purchasing habits, including medical equipment,
should be sold, traded, or otherwise used without their permission. I
believe that consumers who consistently demand greater privacy
protection online would oppose this amendment, which takes away their
protections.
My Republican colleagues claim that the FCC's proposed rules for
privacy protection will confuse consumers, but let's be clear. The data
shows that consumers are already confused when it comes to privacy.
Just a few weeks ago, Georgetown law professor Paul Ohm testified
before the Communications and Technology Subcommittee of the Energy and
Commerce Committee that privacy in the U.S. has never been uniformly
controlled. For example, there are sector-specific privacy laws for
consumers' health, credit, and educational information. This is not to
mention the 50-State patchwork of State privacy laws all across this
country.
Consumers want to be heard. They want more privacy. We have an
obligation to respond to their requests by opposing this amendment. I
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chair, a couple of points here.
We have a privacy regulator. It is the Federal Trade Commission. The
FTC has that jurisdiction. To add the FCC is going to cause confusion
as to who is in charge of what. Everyone knows that. Do we need to pass
a privacy bill? Absolutely. Do we need to pass a data security bill?
Absolutely. That is the responsibility of this body. It is not the
responsibility of unelected bureaucrats, who are sitting down at the
FCC, who come up with a 147-page rule, and then they are not even
looking, necessarily, at where the problem is with privacy. They are
going to focus on the ISPs. They are out in front of their skis, if you
will, on this one.
We have a privacy regulator. It deserves to keep that authority
because it has expertise in that area.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, I warned my colleagues that the other side
would say that this is going to be confusing to consumers, but
consumers are already pretty confused about their privacy protection.
In fact, I will bet that everyone in this room is confused about his
privacy protection.
We need a body that can put privacy protection up front and create
rules that make sense and that can be enforced uniformly across the
country. That is going to make customers more confident that their data
is being protected. That is what we need.
Mr. Chair, prohibiting the FCC from using funds to enforce any
proposed privacy rules would have the effect of leaving the FCC with
very little room to protect consumer privacy. I don't think that is
what Americans want. Americans want their privacy protected. If we
remove all funds for enforcement capabilities from the FCC we are going
to be left with no privacy protection.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chair, what we have is an issue of jurisdiction.
The jurisdiction is with the FTC, and they have the funds, and they do
a good job of this. Let them do their job. Preemption--yes, that is
something that we should discuss and pass in a privacy and data
security bill within this body. It should not be done by the FCC, which
is saying, Hey, just trust us; just trust a Federal agency, and we will
come in here and do this through the rules.
It is a Big Government power grab. I think people have had enough of
that. It is expensive. It is confusing. I urge support for my
amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McNERNEY. 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 gentlewoman from Tennessee
will be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 114-639 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Ellison of Minnesota.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Duffy of Wisconsin.
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Becerra of California.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Ellison of Minnesota.
Amendments En Bloc by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin.
Amendment No. 10 by Mr. Himes of Connecticut.
Amendment No. 11 by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon.
Amendment No. 12 by Mr. Grayson of Florida.
Amendment No. 13 by Mr. Kildee of Michigan.
[[Page H4439]]
Amendment No. 14 by Ms. Eshoo of California.
Amendment No. 15 by Mr. Ellison of Minnesota.
Amendment No. 16 by Mr. Ellison of Minnesota.
Amendment No. 17 by Ms. Sewell of Alabama.
Amendment No. 19 by Ms. Norton of the District of Columbia.
Amendment No. 20 by Mr. Amodei of Nevada.
Amendment No. 21 by Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Ellison
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Ellison) 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173,
noes 245, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 357]
AYES--173
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--245
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Himes
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
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)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--15
Bost
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Clarke (NY)
Delaney
Ellmers (NC)
Gallego
Hastings
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Nadler
Nugent
Takai
Turner
Westmoreland
Whitfield
{time} 2231
Mr. REED, Mrs. BLACK, Messrs. PALAZZO, HOLDING, WALDEN, CARTER of
Georgia, and HUNTER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. CONYERS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 357, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Duffy
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Duffy) 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 will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166,
noes 254, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 358]
AYES--166
Abraham
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Hanna
Harris
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hunter
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Olson
Palmer
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
[[Page H4440]]
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Wagner
Walberg
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Woodall
Yoho
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--254
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Ashford
Barr
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Comstock
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Guinta
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hardy
Harper
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Hultgren
Hurd (TX)
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jolly
Joyce
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (MS)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
LaHood
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McKinley
McNerney
McSally
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Moore
Moulton
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Nolan
Norcross
Nunes
O'Rourke
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reed
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Roskam
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Tiberi
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Westerman
Wilson (FL)
Womack
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--13
Bost
Buchanan
Cole
Delaney
Ellmers (NC)
Gallego
Hastings
Nadler
Nugent
Takai
Turner
Westmoreland
Whitfield
{time} 2236
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment No. 3 offered by mr. becerra
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Becerra) 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 will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183,
noes 239, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 359]
AYES--183
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--239
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
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)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--11
Bost
Buchanan
Delaney
Ellmers (NC)
Hastings
Nadler
Nugent
Takai
Turner
Westmoreland
Whitfield
[[Page H4441]]
announcement by the acting chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2240
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Ellison
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Ellison) 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 will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181,
noes 236, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 360]
AYES--181
Adams
Aguilar
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Rush
Russell
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--236
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
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)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--16
Bass
Bost
Buchanan
Delaney
Ellmers (NC)
Griffith
Grijalva
Hastings
LaMalfa
Nadler
Nugent
Ruppersberger
Takai
Turner
Westmoreland
Whitfield
announcement by the acting chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2243
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendments En Bloc Offered by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentlewoman from
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) 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 will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179,
noes 243, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 361]
AYES--179
Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
[[Page H4442]]
NOES--243
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
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)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--11
Bost
Buchanan
Delaney
Ellmers (NC)
Hastings
Nadler
Nugent
Takai
Turner
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2247
So the en bloc amendments were rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment no. 10 offered by mr. himes
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Himes) 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 will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183,
noes 238, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 362]
AYES--183
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--238
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
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)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--12
Bost
Buchanan
Delaney
Ellmers (NC)
Hastings
Nadler
Nugent
Palazzo
Takai
Turner
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2251
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
[[Page H4443]]
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. DeFazio
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. DeFazio) 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 will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 128,
noes 294, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 363]
AYES--128
Amash
Beyer
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brooks (AL)
Burgess
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Chaffetz
Chu, Judy
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Collins (GA)
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davidson
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeLauro
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fudge
Gabbard
Garrett
Gohmert
Gosar
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanna
Harris
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hudson
Huffman
Jones
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kildee
Kirkpatrick
Labrador
Lance
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Massie
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meadows
Meeks
Mica
Mulvaney
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
Pallone
Palmer
Payne
Perlmutter
Perry
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Rangel
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schrader
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sires
Slaughter
Stewart
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Upton
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--294
Abraham
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bera
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buck
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Cardenas
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Cicilline
Clawson (FL)
Cole
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Rodney
DeGette
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DeSaulnier
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dold
Donovan
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Emmer (MN)
Engel
Esty
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibbs
Gibson
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Graham
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hahn
Hardy
Harper
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Keating
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Kuster
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langevin
Latta
Lawrence
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McSally
Meehan
Meng
Messer
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Moore
Moulton
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
O'Rourke
Olson
Palazzo
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Peters
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price (NC)
Price, Tom
Quigley
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (NY)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Russell
Ryan (OH)
Salmon
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stefanik
Stivers
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Tsongas
Valadao
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--11
Bost
Buchanan
Delaney
Ellmers (NC)
Hastings
Nadler
Nugent
Takai
Turner
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2255
Ms. VELAZQUEZ changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Grayson
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Grayson) 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 will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177,
noes 245, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 364]
AYES--177
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--245
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
[[Page H4444]]
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
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)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--11
Bost
Buchanan
Delaney
Ellmers (NC)
Hastings
Nadler
Nugent
Takai
Turner
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2258
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Kildee
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Kildee) 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 will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186,
noes 236, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 365]
AYES--186
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rigell
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--236
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
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)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--11
Bost
Buchanan
Delaney
Ellmers (NC)
Hastings
Nadler
Nugent
Takai
Turner
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2301
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Ms. Eshoo
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
[[Page H4445]]
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 will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182,
noes 238, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 366]
AYES--182
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rigell
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--238
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
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)
Young (IN)
Zinke
NOT VOTING--13
Bost
Buchanan
Delaney
Ellmers (NC)
Hastings
Nadler
Nugent
Sires
Takai
Turner
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Zeldin
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2304
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Ellison
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Ellison) 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 will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167,
noes 255, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 367]
AYES--167
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--255
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carney
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
[[Page H4446]]
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Moulton
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Tsongas
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)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--11
Bost
Buchanan
Delaney
Ellmers (NC)
Hastings
Nadler
Nugent
Takai
Turner
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2308
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Ellison
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Ellison) 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 will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 162,
noes 255, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 368]
AYES--162
Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree
Pocan
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--255
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carney
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Moulton
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Polis
Pompeo
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Tsongas
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)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--16
Becerra
Bost
Buchanan
Delaney
Ellmers (NC)
Hastings
Lee
Love
Meeks
Nadler
Nugent
Takai
Turner
Van Hollen
Westmoreland
Whitfield
{time} 2310
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 17 Offered by Ms. Sewell of Alabama
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Alabama
(Ms. Sewell) 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 will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182,
noes 240, not voting 11, as follows:
[[Page H4447]]
[Roll No. 369]
AYES--182
Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grothman
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--240
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
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)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--11
Bost
Buchanan
Delaney
Ellmers (NC)
Hastings
Nadler
Nugent
Takai
Turner
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2313
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 19 Offered by Ms. Norton
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) 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 will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182,
noes 238, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 370]
AYES--182
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Comstock
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--238
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
[[Page H4448]]
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
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)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--13
Bost
Brat
Buchanan
Buck
Delaney
Ellmers (NC)
Hastings
Nadler
Nugent
Takai
Turner
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting Chair (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2316
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mrs. COMSTOCK. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 370, I mistakenly voted
``yes,'' when I intended to vote ``no.''
Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Amodei
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada
(Mr. Amodei) 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 will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235,
noes 185, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 371]
AYES--235
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
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)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--185
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Guinta
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Bost
Buchanan
Crawford
Delaney
Ellmers (NC)
Hastings
Nadler
Nugent
Rigell
Takai
Turner
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting Chair (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2319
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) 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 will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232,
noes 187, not voting 14, as follows:
[[Page H4449]]
[Roll No. 372]
AYES--232
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
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)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
NOES--187
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Graves (LA)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
McSally
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rigell
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--14
Bost
Buchanan
Delaney
Ellmers (NC)
Hastings
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Nadler
Nugent
Takai
Turner
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Zinke
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2322
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Carter of Georgia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Woodall, 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.
5485) making appropriations for financial services and general
government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and for other
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________