, if you will, to reunite those families. we do not know how long it will take. we are trying to get it done as expeditiously as possible. we will keep working until it is done. host: what did the secretary say to you? guest: he talked about the process. kind of reassuring members of the judiciary committee on both sides. what happens once the children are separated, how that process goes, so we can be reassured. we heard a lot of questions about the care children are receiving, so we can be reassured that the children are being properly cared for. he also talks about some of the parents have been involved in criminal activity. many have not. and just trying to make sure that that system is prioritized. we will keep having those meetings until every child is reunited. ,ost: congresswoman val demings you have been a police chief over the years, member of

congress. is there a title that you prefer? guest: public servant. demings,gresswoman val democrat from florida. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] he speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. eternal god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. once again we come to you to ask wisdom, patience, and peace for the members of the peam's house. -- people's house. as they encounter their constituents over this weekend, endow them with grace and understanding, especially of those issues which are most pressing. please keep all who work for the people's house in good health. that they might faithfully fulfill the great responsibility given them in their service to the work of the capitol. bless us this day and every day . may all that is done here this

day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition. >> mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, i nand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval. journal. the speaker: the question son agreeing to the speaker's approval. journal. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. >> mr. speaker. i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum not present and make the point of order a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from california, mr. gomez. mr. gomez: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> a to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, i rise to honor a hero to the sierra and mourn his tragic loss. braiden barney, age 36, gave his life saturday night fighting the ferguson fire which continues to ravage the forrests nero sem at this valley and threaten the communities of mariposa county. a second generation with cal fire. he was alone that fight cutting fire breaks to stop this monster fire when his dozer overturned in treacherous

terrain. he was well-known to the people of mariposa being involved in being civic activities. he leaves behind a grieving widow, jessica, and two small hildren. our firefighters face mortal peril when they leave the safety and comfort of their homes and families to put themselves in harm's way. they literally place their lives between our communities and the fires that can consume them. they know the danger better than anyone. and yet they do what they do anyway. mr. speaker, to the barney family, i can can only express our profound respect, admiration, gratitude, and sympathy on behalf of all of those who he died to protect. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek

recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one inute. >> mr. speaker, william wynn is a 2-year-old from my district. his fwradwation from graduate school last week but he missed it -- graduation from graduate scal was last week but he missed it because he was in jail in vietnam. i'm here to stand up for my constituent and ask he be treated humanely. this young man is a son, a brother, and a friend to many. i see his passion for justice in the millennials i represent. will is part of a a generation that cares deeply about the world beyond our borders. they are advocates for the most vulnerable, voices for the voiceless, and now william

needs our voices. mr. gomez: he needs our collective resolve to help him through this difficult time. will's case has unified democrats and republicans to work together on his behalf. for weeks we have done everything to build diplomatic efforts needed to bring him home. and today i'm asking all americans, regardless of their politics, to join us in supporting the wynn family. keep them in your thoughts, in your hearts, and in your prayers. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minutes. mr. bost: thank you, mr. speaker. 100 years ago today a young marine from murphys burro illinois gave his life on the frontlines of world war i. paul stout, graduated in 1916 from murphy's borrough high school and enlisted in the marine corps in february of

1918. in june of 1918, he was deployed to the frontlines. at age 20, he was killed in act in france in july of 1918. for his heroic action, he was awarded the purple heart, the bronze star with a v device for valor. paul stout, american legion post 127 is my hometown american legion post. his name and it is named after private stout. i had the opportunity this last year to visit the battleground at bela wood where he fought -- bella wood where he fought a month and a half before passing in the battle later on farther into france. i can tell you it was a truly moving experience. although memories may fade over time, we must never forget those who served and gave their lives in defense of freedom and liberty in every war across

this great globe. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minutes. ms. gabbard: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the life of hawaii county police officer bronson who died yesterday after being fatally shot tuesday night during a traffic stop in mountain view. bronson was just 46 years old. a father of three. a graduate of bya mia high school. a public servant recognized by his community, his fellow officers, and his family and friends as one of a kind because of his dedication to service, his kindness, and his heart of aloha. he was part of the puna patrol division who over the last few months have been working around the clock to support their community in crisis due to the

ongoing volcanic activity and lava flow, helping residents who have been displaced from their homes, their businesses, and their farms. we mourn with the community of puna, the hawaii police department, and bronson's ohana he left behind, casey, sampson, grace, and nathan. we can never forget the sacrifices our law enforcement officers and their families make every single day to serve and protect. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. tomorrowson: -- mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize the kennedy luger youth exchange and study abroad program, otherwise known as the yes program. sponsored by department of state and funded by congress, the yes program is celebrating 15 years of connect canning the world.

-- connecting the world. established after the september 11 attacks, high school students spend a year in countries with a a significant muslim population. they attend a local high school and engage in ack aivities to learn about their host country's society and values. in turn the students share american culture and values to the people of their host country. i recently met with a yes rogram participants, josh lynn jocelyn. she lived and learned in boss kneea. she and other students were able to participate in this important cultural exchange that fosters understanding and collaboration between the people of different backgrounds. mr. speaker, i know that this great program will continue to grow and connect cultures to truly build a global community. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from delaware seek recognition?

ms. rochester: ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. rochester: i rise today to support the bipartisan, bicameral power act. the goal of this legislation is simple. great safe workplaces in a society where everyone can thrive. we all have the right to work in a safe environment, but over the past months we have heard stories of individuals from all walks of life. we have seen how widespread harassment is and the cultures of silence. in fact, according to the eeoc, it is estimated that 90% of harassment incidents never get reported. that's why we need this bill. the empower act outlines what sexual harassment is, creates systems that foster accountability, and removes the fear of retaliation that keeps so many victims from coming forward. by removing that fear of reporting, eradicating deceptive nondisclosure agreements, and increasing transparency, we're taking

steps to make our workplaces harassment free and creating a culture of respect throughout society. from harvey winestein to factory floors to times up and the me too movement. we're taking this movement from a movement to action. i ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in overwhelming support for the officers who carry out the important mission of immigration and customs enforcement, or better known as i.c.e. these brave individuals are saddled with the responsibility of facing some of the world's most dangerous and violent criminals. like ms-13 and many who traffic drug and humans and others who wish to do us harm. yesterday, 35 members voted against supporting this

important area of our law enforcement. mr. allen: not supporting our law enforcement and i.c.e. is just plain wrong and endangers american lives. i.c.e. ensures the defense and security of the united states through the identification, investigation, apprehension, deportation of foreign nationals that pose a threat of any kind to u.s. national security. we're a country of laws and they must be enforced. i will vote time and again to support these brave officers and i stand here today to thank them for their service, for the sacrifice that they have made for their -- that their families each and every day as they keep our communities as safe as possible. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minutes. ms. lee: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong opposition to h.res. 119, which really is a shameful denying of the clear

evidence of climate change and its impact on our planet. let me be clear, there is no greater threat to the future of this planet than climate change. but instead of offering solutions, republicans are burying their heads in the sand once again. here are the facts. climate change is real. it's man-made. and every day that congress fails to act we're making the problem worse. and the cost of inaction is astronomical. if we to nothing, it is our grandchildren who will be left with the price tag. the truth is, mr. speaker, that we can pass policy that is dramatically reduce reason house gases and build our economy. california, my home state s. four years ahead of schedule, on our greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. and green jobs have grown exponentially. we have over 300,000 people working in the green jobs industry. by far the most in the country. so, no, mr. speaker, this

carbon tax fear mongering won't work because americans understand the true threat to our economy is from climate change, which is already reeking havoc on our planet. i urge my colleagues to reject this resolution and instead get to do the real work and get to work on addressing climate change. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 101, i call up h.con.res. 119. expressing the sense of congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the united states' economy and ask for its immediate consideration can on the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 119. concurrent resolution expressing the sense of congress that a carbon tax will be detrimental to the united states economy. the speaker pro tempore:

pursuant to house resolution 1001, the concurrent resolution is considered as read. the concurrent resolution shall be debated for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee of ways and means. the gentleman from texas, mr. marchant, and the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. neal, each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. . mr. marchant: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and their remarks include extraneous material on h.con.res 119, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. marchant: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. marchant: mr. speaker, thank you for bringing this resolution to the floor for consideration. i rise in support of h.con.res express the ld

sense of congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the economy. this resolution will send a clear signal to the american people that we oppose policies that would drive up energy prices for families and for businesses. a stand-alone carbon tax generally would have such detrimental effects on the economy and would have an unwarranted and transparent -- and would be an unwarranted and transparent grab for revenue. the adverse economic effects of such tax would be felt throughout the economy, falling hardest on the most vulnerable, young, the poor, the elderly, and those living on fixed incomes. an obama administration proposal in 2016 for a $10 tax

on every barrel of oil would have translated into an increase at the gas pump of approximately 25 cents per gallon for every american consumer. similarly, a stand-alone carbon tax would increase the price of gasoline, natural gas, home heating oil, and electricity. american families would feel the pain immediately when they buy gas or diesel to get them to their jobs every day. american families would also feel the pain when they turn on the lights or adjust the thermostat in their homes every day. the cost burden of a carbon tax also would correspondingly increase the prices of everything consumers buy every day. in short, everything from a carton of milk to a pair of

shoes to a bicycle to an automobile. the price increases on goods with fixed demand that would result from such tax would directly harm millions of americans whose incomes mean that they must budget carefully in advance to afford just the basic necessary its of life. in addition, a carbon tax would hit at a time when these industries that it targets are just now recovering from a very damaging economically period of our lives. with a reform tax code built for growth and roll back of burdensome regulations, american businesses and their workers are finally making a comeback and we're seeing great optimism about our economic future. now is not the time to debate placing additional burdens on

industries that are trying to help us keep the lights on. this resolution makes clear that we oppose policies that would drive up energy prices, damage the u.s. economy, reduce the american g.d.p., and hurt american jobs. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. neal: thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. neal: mr. speaker, i'm discouraged to come to the floor today as we squander the valuable time of this body arguing over a pointless resolution that will accomplish nothing for the people of america, whether it's accepted or rejected. nothing. so let's be clear about what this resolution does and does not do. we are not arguing today over

whether this body will or will not adopt a tax on carbon emissions. this resolution, and i'm quoting, expresses the sense of congress about a carbon tax. so what we are trying to achieve apparently this morning is a discussion of the mood of congress. well, we should hold some hearings about the mood of congress, because i would submit that it's not very pleasant time to be working on capitol hill, but nothing in this exercise is going to have anything to do with carbon tax. this is better suited to a high school debate than it is to the united states house of representatives. there are plenty of people across the country who need real help and real action from

this congress. every day american families, people far from this building, far from this city, they're struggling with real problems and real challenges. they feel their standard of living has not improved. they want to feel some security. security that their jobs will stick around. how about holding some hearings on pensions? security they can count on health insurance, security that one day they will be able to retire with dignity, security that they will be able to launch their kids into a successful and happy life. so on this thursday morning, the republican leadership has brought up a sense of the mood of congress on carbon. we could choose to bring forward legislation that actually would help american families today. we could help them meet many of the challenges that they have.

instead, we're using our precious remaining legislative on to hold an amateur hour a debate about something that's not going to happen. this is an empty gesture. it's a political stunt. it's not worthy of the time or attention of this body. when i go home and talk to my constituents and my neighbors, they want to hear what i, along with the members of this chamber, intend to do to ensure their hard work still translates into a decent life. something around us is clearly out of step. there's a growing anxiety around the country that's bigger than our political differences and divide. it's a building sense that at some point when we all perhaps were not looking the system became stacked against ordinary people. the rules changed and hard work

isn't enough any longer to guarantee that you can make it in america. the unemployment rate for sure is low but 65% of americans worry about having enough money to pay their bills and, yes, we can say this morning that downward pressure on wages essentially has kept those wages flat for the american people despite the fact that the unemployment rate is advertised at about 4%. so one in five americans has more credit card debt than emergency savings. less than 40% of the people in this country have enough savings to cover a $1,000 emergency room visit or for that matter car repair. it's plain to see in my own district. we've seen the challenges that the people back in western massachusetts face every single day. despite the talk of growth in the stock market, which by the way has been going up since october of 2009, that their

salaries have barely moved. home prices have gone up by 9% in our market last year. a gallon of gas cost 28% more than last year. electricity bills in massachusetts are up 21% over last year. childcare, saving for college and, again, retirement and ensions, health care premiums, mr. speaker, people are having trouble keeping up. teachers have to pick up jobs in restaurants or driving for uber. but today's economy apparently isn't hard on the top 1% in america. last year the average bonus on wall street -- listen to this number. average, $185,000. it rose 17% after our republican colleagues passed their tax bill last year. that's three times what most american families bring home in

an entire year. it seems like things used to be easier. and you know why? because they were easier. americans born in the 1940's had a 92% chance of earning a higher income than their parents had at age 30. those born in the 1980's have a 50% chance of doing so. and the tax bill that republicans passed last year, without a single hearing in all of 51 days, and not incidentally with one democratic vote, will make things substantially worse for these families. people don't really need to hear these statistics. intuitively they know what's happened. three out of four americans are not confident that their children are better off than they were and they have every right to be worried. health care used to be easier to afford. the new republican tax law raised premiums 15% and weakens

those with pre-existing conditions. then republicans wanted to slash $500 billion out of the medicare program so many of our family members who depend on it will be more challenged. what have families gotten from the republicans on health care? higher deductibles, higher costs, and plans that cover much less. the cost of a four-year degree at a public college has doubled since 1996. the basic ticket into the middle class is out of reach for too many of our young people today. and the ones who do manage to scrape by far too often accumulate debt that makes homeownership or starting a family a long way off. other family budget essentials just keep climbing too. as i noted, gas prices are up 27% from last year. childcare costs rose for the fifth year in a row. this week an infant with childcare at a daycare center, $211. mr. speaker, there are concrete actions that we might take right here in this chamber to

support these families. we could spend today working on college affordability. how about some pension hearings to talk about what's happening in the central states as well as the challenges that retirement faces for the american family? and how do we help more people afford that first home or how to help their parents once again prepare for a secure retirement? we are nearly out of time to get things done in this congress. we're down to less than 25 legislative days before the mid term elections. so if we plan to do anything about the pressing issues facing americans, this is the time to step it up. but instead of trying to broker solutions or offer ideas, the republican leadership has opted to hold a shadow debate. it doesn't matter how this vote turns out. let me repeat, it doesn't matter how this vote turns out. the outcome will be identical. nothing on this issue will change because of what we're

doing this morning. nothing will change. that contentment with the status quo may be fine for my republican colleagues, but it's not going to help the families that i represent. in fact, it pretty much reinforces their doubts about the very work of congress. listen, if you want to debate a carbon tax, let's hold some hearings. let's hold some discussions about a carbon tax. let's find out what it would mean for the economy. we might use that moment to test what off-shore drilling does for oil as part of the carbon tax discussion or for the families in western massachusetts. let's find out what the impact would be if we have fossil fuel emissions reduced on our economic growth. let's think strategically about how it might affect our geopolitics. if you want to have this debate, then let's have a real debate through hearings through

the regular order. this resolution is meaningless. the outcome will be nothing no matter what the final vote turns out to be. it's a waste of our time this morning and we ought to be devoting our time to meeting the challenges that the american people expect us to meet, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. marchant: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from kansas, mr. marshall. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for two minutes. mr. marshall: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you to my colleague for introducing this resolution. i rise today to support this resolution. this anti-carbon tax resolution expresses the sense of congress that a carbon tax will be detrimental to the united states economy and certainly is not a waste of anyone's time. as a physician, typically what i like to do is examine the risk and benefit analysis of any treatment plan, and i apply that same standard to a

situation like this. i want to know what is the risk and benefit of any new tax that might be considered. a carbon tax would raise costs on everything americans buy, from electricity and gasoline to food and everyday household products with little or any benefit. mr. speaker, when we introduce a new tax or consider a new tax, i want to know who it will impact the most and who i think this would impact the most is that single mom i delivered about 10 years ago and she has two children at home. she's working 60 hours a week, and this is going to impact her more than anybody else because she's just trying to get by with the income she's making. this is going to drive the cost up for her children's school lunches. it will drive the cost up for her gasoline to get to and from work. that single mom will be impacted by this carbon tax. . the carbon tax would result in massive job loss, lead to

higher price force american families and small businesses, and jeopardize a america's energy scrutiny. mr. president -- mr. speaker, this president and this congress have been fighting for american energy dominance and a carbon tax would undermine that goal. i'm so proud of what my producers back home have done in the oil and a gas industry to have a cleaner product. what the refineries are doing today compared to when i was growing up living between two refineries. i'm proud how the electrical generation has improved. this would affirm the position of congress that a coshon tax would run counter to the goals of economic dominance. mr. speaker, thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. neal: let me renies a very important member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from california, mr. thompson, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. thompson: i thank the ranking member for yielding.

let's be real clear, there is not a carbon tax bill before us today. this is a political stunt. and this stunt comes at the same time that the republican majority is undermining access to affordable health care for all of our constituents. they are working with this administration to sabotage the health care marketplaces and drive up prices. and legislating away coverage and protections for our constituents. they have gutted resources that help people enroll in the plans best for them. they are expanding junk health care plans that don't provide care if you're sick or injured. and can can charge more for pre-existing conditions and charge more for older people. their scam of a tax bill eliminated the individual mandate driving healthier folks away from coverage. that means risk can't be spread and prices go up.

kids born with heart problems or young adults diagnosed with cancer will pay a penalty for the rest of their lives. on top of all that, the administration has frozen the risk adjustment payments which prevent insurance companies from cherry picking only the healthiest people to cover. according to price waterhouse coopers, a republican sabotaged efforts will increase the cost of health insurance by as much as 24% this year alone. these are some of the issues that are hurting the middle class now. and these are some of the issues that we should be focusing on. we should be holding hearings on this -- these issues. and if you have concerns with an issue -- other issues, have hearings on them, but don't bring some political malarkey to the floor and pretend that we're doing something for the american people. this is a failure by the majority party. we should be working for our

constituents on real bills that are before us now. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. marchant: mr. speaker, it's my honor now at this time to yield to the majority whip, mr. scalise, from louisiana, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. scalise: i thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague from texas for yielding. and for bringing this legislation to the floor. i rise in strong support as lead author of house concurrent resolution 119, along with my colleague, mr. mckinley from west virginia. mr. speaker, the question's real simple and that is, do we support or oppose a carbon tax? i think the case is very clear by anybody's looked objectively at what a carbon tax would do to the economy. it would be devastating to our manufacturing base, it would kill jobs, and i think most devastating, mr. speaker, it

would rise in increased cost for families across this country. if you look at this chart right here, it talks about the estimate. what this would do to families t. would be an increase by an estimated $1,900 per family on the cost of things that they buy all across this country. the resolution is simple. be resolved by the house that it is a sense of congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to american families and businesses and is not in the best interest of the united states. yes or no. it's a clear yes. vote if you're concerned about families. why don't we talk about. so groups in support. the council for citizens for government waste, says a carbon tax would harm the u.s. economy by raising the cost of all goods and services, imposing an unfair burden on the low earn middle class, and deterring new investment. thereby killing jobs. why don't we listen to what the american farm burewrow -- bureau federation said.

agriculture is an energy intensive sector and a carbon tax leff have ied -- levied on farmers and ranchers would be devastate, let's listen to what the americans for tax reform said. a carbon tax would kill american jobs by the millions. why would we want to allow the possibility -- believe me, there are some people in washington that are talking about trying to bring a carbon tax. to kt a like there is no talk at all, clearly there are people here in this chamber that want to impose a carbon tax. let's be clear about how devastating that would be to the american economy. everybody gets to take a position on this today, mr. speaker. you are either for a carbon tax or against it. i would urge strong support for house concurrent resolution 119. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. neal: thank you, mr. speaker. i wonder what the farm bureau says about the tariffs on agricultural products across the country? with that aid like to recognize the gentleman from connecticut,

my neighbor and good friend, well informed member of the ways and means committee, john larson for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from account account is recognized for two minutes. mr. larson: thank you, mr. speaker. let me associate myself with the remarks of mr. neal and talk about what a fraud this whole process has become. i have great respect for the gentleman from louisiana, but can you imagine never having a hearing on this? let me tell you who would like to come to that hearing. m baker, devout liberal, you got george shultz, martin feldstein, hank pollson, gary kahn, rex tillerson, to name a few, who say that congress ought to least be open to looking at a carbon tax. it's either according to the other side it's a choice between carbon tax or not a carbon tax. they don't talk about passing

on the benefits to the consumer. they don't talk about the transition that's needed or strengthening the pension funds. or even from the standpoint of a infrastructure bill that they have never addressed in eight years, while china moves ahead of us every single day. nothing gets done in the house of representatives. so here we have a fake debate and fake legislation that's going nowhere instead of actually real hearings. we don't have real hearings on social security. and its out gentlewoman. we don't have real hearings on gun violence. we don't even have real hearings here on the state of what's going on with this dministration and the f.b.i. in our intelligence people. this is the sad state of affairs that we find ourselves in. so in our intelligence people. if this side of the aisle, it's primarily because in the most

none straive democracy in the world -- demonstrative democracy in the world, not even a hearing, a suggestion about bringing experts to talk about what this could possibly do. what a sham. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. marchant: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. grothman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. mr. grothman: i came down to the floor today to address the resolution we have talked about regarding the carbon tax. since then i think something else has come up. we just heard one of my colleagues, i think, kind of belittle uber drivers and waiters and waitresses. i'll tell you, when i take an uber, don't think it's something that you have to resort to take that job. i think it's a very hard job. knowing all about the city. being able to get along with sometimes difficult people.

working nights. waiters and waitresses same thing. i have worked in kitchens. i tonight think one should say one has to resort to these jobs. it's kind of a thing that some congressmen have around here i don't like to become removed and sometimes think they are more important than people doing other jobs. those are both fine jobs. i respect the uber drivers who drive me around this city. i used to work in a kitchen and i respect the waiters and waitresses. and i don't believe one should describe working as an uber driver or waiter and waitress as something people have to resort to. they are fine jobs. now i guess i came down here for the carbon tax. i will point out i think the carbon tax, if implemented and people throw it out there, the carbon tax will fall on the average guy the most. it's something that falls on people who drive a car, which would be a regressive tax. it falls on people who heat their homes which would be a regressive tax.

it bothers me particularly when disproportionately it comes from the party that purports to represent the average guy, when they think of a new tax to apply out there, they come up with -- they are going to promote a a tax which disproportionately affects the average guy because everybody's got a heat bill. almost everybody has a car. i think among the other things that with would cause a damper on the american economy, toint like taxes that disproportionately hit the average guy. i yield the remainer -- remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. neal: i don't think anybody was demeaning the work people do. i think we were talking about the challenging nature of our economy. i don't think the gentleman would dispute the fact that the gig economy has forced town wages. the voice of chicago well-known, mr. davis for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to express strong opposition to this resolution

which is nothing more than political posturing. this nonbinding resolution does nothing to control increases in health care premiums. republican actions have wreaked havoc in the health care market, driving up health care costs for americans. especially older americans. this nonbinding resolution does nothing to limit skyrocketing drug prices after giving tens of millions of dollars in tax cuts to the drug industry. chicago fire department was in to see me this week, and they talked about the high cost of drugs. for example, the cost of nitroglycerin, tripled over four years from $37 to $120. the cost of the lock zone, more than doubled during this time period. if the chicago fire department is having trouble paying for

pharmaceuticals, then you can imagine what smaller entities would be experiencing. this resolution does nothing to increase jobs. nothing to help parents support the high cost of childcare and college. it is, indeed, a do-nothing resolution. that's exactly what it does. i will vote against it. and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. marchant: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. mcmillan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. mcmillan: i rise today to speak in support of my colleague's resolution, h.con.res. 119, which expresses the sense of congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the united states. a cash mon tax is a tax on

american consumer and economy. a carbon tax would significantly, preet that, significantly drive up the cost of the fuels that drive our way of life and result in millions and millions of jobs lost. this burden would be unfair, at least shoulders by the lower and middle class incomes. this -- the nonpartisan, i want to say that, the nonpartisan congressional budget office, c.b.o., in 2013, stated a carbon tax would increase the price of fossil fuels and in direct proportionate to their carbon content. higher fuel prices would rise production costs and ultimately drive up prices for goods and services throughout the economy. a stud which from the national association of manufacturers found that carbon tax could drive up gasoline costs between $6 and $14 per gallon. lead to as many as 21 million jobs lost.

continuously shrinking our economy and lowering our federal revenue. all without doing anything to improve global greenhouse gas emissions. just yesterday the house passed an amendment to prohibit funds from implementing the obama administration's social costs of the carbon rule. the facts are clear, a carbon tax is not the way to protect our environment and economy. the social cost of carbon tax far outweighs the potential benefits. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. . mr. neal: i'd like to recognize the gentlelady from california, a very knowledgeable member of the ways and means committee, ms. chu. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. chu: mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to house concurrent resolution 119. this resolution is nothing more than an election year stunt by republicans to distract from the growing list of issues they failed to address this

congress. let me be clear, this vote is a sham. if republicans truly wanted to debate the merits of a carbon tax, they would allow the ways and means committee to hold hearings with expert testimony and robust discussion. in fact, multiple members of our committee have already introduced bills that tackle the ever-pressing issue of climate change, which is impacting the health and well-being of american families and future generations more and more each day. and this is not just a democratic concern either. there's even a republican carbon tax bill expected to be introduced in the coming days. but instead, here we are wasting what little time we have left this congress debating a pointless resolution while there are urgent problems waiting to be resolved. congress should be passing legislation to address the double-digit increases in health care premiums caused by the repeal of the individual mandate by the g.o.p. tax scam. or reuniting immigrant children

with their parents. the fact is, mr. speaker, this vote is a wasted opportunity and just another example of republicans placing political expedience over regular ordinary. as a member of both the sustainable energy environment coalition and the bipartisan climate solutions caucus, i'd love to participate in a real debate about how we can address climate change. my constituents are clamoring for us to act, but if republicans are going to continue to ignore and deny the existence of this crisis, the least they can do here in congress is to use this time to legislate, not electioneer. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. marchant: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. johnson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise this morning in strong

support of the resolution, and i thank my good friend and colleague from louisiana, steve scalise, for bringing it to the floor. the carbon tax is one of those endlessly recycled bad ideas. a carbon tax would put a tax and increase cost on coal and il and gas, carbon dioxide emissions. it is a tax on productivity. as anyone with the slightest familiarity with economics will tell you, the more you tax the less you get out of it. in just seven months after we passed the tax cuts and jobs act, nearly every economic indicator is showing record breaking success. the free market has been unleashed again, and our economy is thriving as a result. we're on pace for a quarter of economic growth that we haven't seen in more than a decade. imposing a job-killing carbon tax minimizes the gains we have made and will stunt our economic growth. of course, the carbon tax would run counter to the goals of american energy dominance and

national security, another priority that we have made great progress in. a carbon tax would have a negative effect on consumption, investment and jobs, and increase the cost of coal and natural gas and petroleum products and lead to lower real-wage rates, lower productivity and decrease worker incomes. imposing a carbon tax sets the nacks backward. after all the accomplishments we've made in the last year and a half, that's just something we should not tolerate. a carbon tax asks the entire nation to make enormous sacrifices, and the only thing we get in return is falling behind our competitors in the global marketplace. we have a broad array of leaders who are in support and agree with these principles. here's harry alford, president of the national black chamber of commerce. he said, our great nation is at a crossroads. we can continue to reduce regulations and watch our economy rise with the recent tax reform, bringing unnecessary hurdles before us, like a carbon tax, will preclude that growth and hurt

our economy immensely, unquote. we got pages and pages of these. here's heather higgins, c.e.o. of the independent women's voice. she said, quote, a carbon tax would be detrimental to women and their families, causing their transportation and electricity to skyrocket and suppress their wages. chet thompson, petro chemical manufacturers, energy is the engine of progress, he says. making to more expensive will hurt our economy and impact lower and middle income families who can least afford it. i have pages and pages of these quote in support of the principles we're advocating here this morning. we have to support this resolution. i urge my colleagues to do that and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. neal: i will like to yield to the gentleman from texas, a member of the ways and means committee, and we believe he will bring clarity to this debate, mr. doggett.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. doggett: in this very troubling week when these very republican enablers here in congress have endangered our national security by failing to confront donald trump's surrender to vladimir putin in helsinki, today we again witness their total indifference to another very serious national security concern. unfortunately, just as they're refusal to stand up to trump's denial of this ongoing russian aggression won't make it go away as a grave threat to our democracy, neither will their ignoring the national security challenge of climate change eliminate reality. in recent years, the war, the challenge that these republicans have seen most willing to fight is the war on reality. they particularly find troubling any scientific fact that conflicts with their last

campaign rally or their rigid ideology. this administration actually prohibited the center for disease control from including in its budget documents to congress the terms evidence-based or science-based. they don't want to rely on science as fact. they question and harass scientists across america so much that you have to begin to wonder, do they still believe in gravity? across america we are seeing with our own eyes what they refuse to acknowledge. soaring temperatures, severe and erratic records being set in our weather, massive 100-year floods that seem to recur every 100 months, deep freezes, ravaging hurricanes that dump 60 inches, 60 inches of rain in one short period of time on the city of houston. and often the same time these disasters are occurring in

other parts of america, record droughts, wildfires that are destroying thousands of acres, livelihoods, homes. and all across the country, particularly in the southern states, seldom seen diseases like west nile virus and lyme disease afflicting more and more of our neighbors. during the lifetime of my grandchildren, i know that my home state of texas, america's number one greenhouse gas polluter, is on schedule to become a very different place with more of the state looking like the is a noran desert and the coastal areas like those that -- sanoran desert and coastal areas will find themselves submerged and metropolitan areas will be affected by storm surges. meanwhile, we will see in the future, not right now, thousands of premature deaths every year because of the air

pollutants that are associated with carbon emissions. and around the world, the very severe impact of climate change has already been identified as a major contributing factor -- mr. neal: i yield the gentleman an additional one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. doggett: to the disaster in syria, conflicts in africa and what is becoming a growing number of climate refugees. trump's own defense secretary has acknowledged the need to address climate change and the impact on our military. scientific america has reported that climate change presents a significant and direct risk to the u.s. military, its readiness, operations, and strategy. we must treat this as a national security threat, and when you have a security threat, you don't just rely on one weapon. a carbon tax that is revenue neutral, that does not take any new tax revenue than that that it replaces is one of the tools that should not be rejected without even having a hearing

to evaluate it. the likelihood of a carbon tax in our future will not be changed by this silly resolution, but as republicans continue to reject all ways, any ways of addressing the climate security, national challenge, the climate change national security challenge, the future of our planet and our families remains in danger every bit as much as they endanger us by yielding to vladimir putin, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. marchant: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from west virginia, who was an original co-sponsor of this resolution, mr. mckinley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. mckinley: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. speaker. thanks to majority whip scalise for his work on this issue. mr. speaker, as the lead co-sponsor on this legislation,

i obviously rise in strong support of the continuing resolution 119. throughout the years, despite what we're hearing from the other side, there have been numerous efforts promoting a carbon tax. there have been bills debated in committee, hearings held and subsequently time devoted on the house floor. none were passed. carbon taxes, however, create uncertainty in the marketplace. look, such a tax might reduce the amount of energy produced from coal and natural gas. i understand that. but as you've heard, it will also raise the cost of everything else americans consume. gasoline, diesel fuel, food, clothing, supplies, all will become more expensive. and we heard, also, the c.b.o. and the stanford studies have warned that the carbon tax is the most regressive tax that could be implemented and its impact on the poor and the middle class is at a rate of

twice others. this is -- there is a simple solution, this resolution, just simply saying a carbon tax will be detrimental to american families and businesses and is not in the best interest of this country. now, last congress passed the very same resolution. it passed 237-163. it's our hope this year's effort will reflect the same bipartisan level of support. look, thanks to tax cuts and regulatory reform, america's economy is clearly on the rise. implementing a carbon tax at this juncture could very well put a brake on that progress. so instead of putting an ideologically tax on everything, there are better ways to address environmental concerns. we could invest strategically in research and innovation to develop clean energy technologies like has been done at net power, longview.

we can provide incentives like 45-q to capture carbon emissions. or advance energy efficiency. mr. speaker, america doesn't need more taxes. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. neal: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. marchant: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. shimkus: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: you are already recognized. mr. shimkus: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. to my friend, richie neal, i understand the frustrations of this debate and some of the

processes, but this does give us a chance to come down on the floor and just talk about the basic policy of is a carbon tax good or is it not good and i can't speak to the process. all i can talk about is the policy. congressman doggett was down here talking about national security issues. i deal with this quite a bit in my role as the chair of the baltic caucus and doing some nato parliamentary assembly things. let me just speak briefly about a concern of what a carbon tax es in international energy fights and here i hold a picture. i wanted to get it on the chart but i wasn't able to of an l.n.g. terminal called independence. now, this terminal is in lithuania and they are able to decrease their reliance on

russian natural gas because they've built this import terminal. they're able to now have two folks in which to import natural gas, thus releaving themselves on being extorted by the russian federation. a carbon tax would increase the costs of our imported -- exported goods to countries like lithuania, making them more susceptible to energy extortion by the russian federation. in an international debate an energy policy which the russian federation does extort, how do i know this? i know this because in the early days of the re-establishment of freedom a u.s. company bought a refinery in lithuania.

i ask unanimous consent for additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for another minute. mr. shimkus: the russians didn't like a u.s. company buying an old refinery, so what did the russians do? they turned off the flow of oil. so just in the international world if we want to help our allies decrease their reliance on imported crude oil from the russian federation, or in this case, liquefies natural gas, a carbon tax will make that more difficult so that's why i think it's important that we have this debate for the international perspective. i also know that a lot of the organizations in which are important to me, the energy alliance, americans for tax reform, farm bureau, western energy alliance, national black chamber of commerce, competitive enterprise institute, and freedom works all support the resolution that says a carbon tax is kind of

the wrong way to go because it increases costs on everybody from the goods that we sell, till we transport them to the market. i appreciate the time. again, we want to be the world leader in oil and gas exports and carbon tax will prohibit us from being able to do that. i thank you for the time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. neal: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm prepared to close. whenever the majority -- mr. marchant: mr. speaker, we have no additional speakers. we'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts virginia tech. mr. neal: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to compliment the previous speaker, my friend, mr. shimkus, on the notion of process. calling up the notion of process. so here we have had a debate where we have sparred for the better part of an hour and we're debating a topic on which

there have been no hearings. let me guess, this is consistent with how the tax bill was done. incidentally, 51 days, without a hearing or without a witness. we're being asked to vote on something today, here, in which there's been no opportunity to place the magnifying glass of critical scrutiny on the proposal in front of us. the truth is what's in front of us is a question about the mood of congress. the mood of congress. i think all 435 of us could testify to what the mood of congress is right now. i tonight think that will be one of the more challenging events we would confront. the idea this is brought in front of the congress without any opportunity for anybody to exam the underlying legislation and the -- examine the underlying legislation and what it might compel is the frustration the american people feel about the institution and its priorities.

as we wrapped up this debate over a piece of legislation that will accomplish zip, zero, nothing, it literally does not matter how the vote turns out because the sole purpose of this resolution is to express, once again, the mood of congress. i'm happy to express the mood of congress any time they want. happy to have a hearing on the mood of congress if that's what they think might get us to a more sound proposal of energy independence, the use of renewables. no, instead, they bring up a piece of legislation here that's going to test how we feel about things this morning. i think the mood we should focus on is the mood of the american people. the people i talk to are under stress. they are tired. exhausted from working one, two jobs. labor participation rates at 62.9%. two million people with opiate addictions. and i wonder what their mood is

as they listen to the discussion we have had here on this floor? they are anxious about their future. they are feeling squeezed because for years now the economy has been leaving them a little bit further behind. i say that about wage growth. wages have flat lined for the better part of almost 13 years in america. and now even as we see some glimmer of hope, the truth is the cost of gasoline and the cost of inflation is going to stagnate their wages again. paychecks have been stuck at the same level. and all the things that families need to get by have been getting more and more expensive. housing, health care, college, childcare, utilities those bills keep growing but the salary, somehow, don't keep up. why don't we have a hearing about the mood of people who have not seen any real wage increases? then we would get a bert flavor

for the debate we're having today rather than the mood of congress on a piece of legislation that has had no hearings and no vetting. so what about a hearing on the mood of our retirement system? what about a hearing on the mood of a child's education? were don't we begin to talk about some of those issues? why don't we have some hearings on some of these issues. young people are going tens of thousands of dollars into student loan debt to try to get a decent start in life. what about their mood? seniors are seeing their fixed income stretched until they break, forcing far too many to choose between paying for their prescription drugs and their groceries. let's have a hearing on their food. -- mood. exarntse cope with high childcare costs which can eat up most of their paycheck. the small margin that's left over is important to keep that family going. let's have a hearing about their mood. the people i talk to, they are

not asking for too much. their expectations for their families aren't out of line. nobody's asking for a hand out. they are asking for a hand up for opportunity. everybody is working hard. but people feel like they are running as fast as they can up the down escalator. let's have a hearing on how they feel about those costs. it takes us to an unreasonable mount of effort to stay in exactly the same place. getting ahead feels more challenging and more difficult all the time. so last december republicans passed a catastrophic tax bill that gave away $2.3 trillion over 10 years without a hearing, without a witness in 51 days. what about the mood of the american people as they exam it and we have seen the mood in public polling. the legislation we have today could have offered some relief to low and middle income families. republicans chose to leave them out in the cold. in fact, it did so little for the average peam that their --

family that their cuts won't keep up with the rising health care premiums or gasoline prices at the pump. the tax bill heaped giveaways on people already completely comfortable and thriving. more concentrated wealth. the people who elected us, sent us here to do a job on their behalf and we ought to take into consideration their mood. they have hired us to get things done for them and we all take, i hope, that responsibility seriously. our activity today has been unworthy of the trust they have placed in us. it's really been a hoax. they just wasted all this time arguing over a sense of congress about a carbon tax and the mood of congress. i could have told them what the mood was here, they have to ask me. this is going to be a a pointless vote, meaningless in stature and no outcome whatsoever. this is political theater. it's not governing like responsible representatives. i urge my colleagues in the majority to focus on-n this

body to accomplish things in the future that might help people who sent us here to do precisely that. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts yields. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. marchant: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. marchant: for many years now, republicans in congress have been clear. a new stand alone carbon tax will raise consumer cost and hurt the economy. it is not a solution to any challenge, but rather it would create additional challenges. american businesses and workers and industry are targeted by a carbon tax and they will suffer economically under such a policy. they are just now recovering from the recession that we went in. and they are just now, because of the tax bill that was passed

this past year, just now beginning to see a brighter economic future. we should not debate putting new obstacles in fronts of them at this time. together we should be focused on working to advance policies that hold down energy cost, improve the u.s. economy, it's g.d.p., and create jocks. that is what we did last year -- jobs. that is what we did last year and that's what we're doing today. mr. speaker, i thank you. i yield the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back his time. all time for debate has expired. and pursuant to house resolution 1001, the previous question is ordered. the question is adoption of the concurrent resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the aye vs. it. the concurrent resolution is agreed to. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the gentleman from texas is recognized.

mr. marchant: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 229. the nays are 180. two voting present. the concurrent resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. he house will come to order. the house will come to order. please clear the aisles and remove your conversations from the floor. he house will come to order. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of h.r. 6147 will now resume. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: a bill making

appropriations for the department of the interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2019, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed. the speaker pro tempore: qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- >> mr. speaker, i reserve a a point of order on the motion. the speaker pro tempore: point of order is reserved. the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. quigley of illinois moves to recommit the bill h.r. 6147 to the committee on appropriations with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. page 151, line 10 after the dollar amount pertaining to the fund for america's kids and grandkids, insert reduce by $380 million. page 215, line 15, after the dollar amount pertaining to the

election assistance commission, insert increase by $380 million. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. please remove your onversations from the floor. the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will be immediately proceed to the final passage as amended. the russians attacked our democracy. they will be back and we're not ready. the president is unwilling to meet this challenge. but we must be willing to meet this challenge. time our electoral

process was called into question post bush-gore, this government spent $3.5 billion to upgrade our election systems. because we treasured the integrity of our democracy. i hope we still do. earlier this year we appropriated $380 million to the election assistance commission to provide grants for training, equipment, and software, to help states fortify and protect our election systems. this amendment appropriates an additional $380 million to grants that continue to improve those defenses. because our election infrastructure remains outdated, low-tech, and nowhere where it needs to be to prevent future intrusions. the lead up to the 2016 elections, the russians targeted the election systems of at least 21 states and as many as 39. through the special counsel's

investigation, we now have the names of 12 russian intelligence officers that carried it out. when president trump was given the opportunity to challenge president putin in helsinki this week, he instead condemned his own intelligence agencies while praising the russian president. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will withhold. the house will come to order. please remove your conversations from the floor. mr. quigley: it was -- thank you. it was embarrassing. it was un-american. and it was a clear sign from the president that he will continue to stand by, as putin orchestrates additional attacks on our democracy. this latest episode of capitulation to the russians was a step too far for many of us -- of you.

but tweets will not stop the russians. this moment demands action. the director of national intelligence, dan coats, recently confirmed that the russians continue to target our elections. 42 states continue to use outdated voting machines susceptible to cyber intrusions. 13 states continue to use voting machines that fail to produce a paper ballot or record. the overwhelming demand for assistance is there. the eac issued a public announcement three days ago that every single state and eligible territory has requested grant funding. with almost 90% of the existing funs already transferred out. -- funds already transferred out. but the amount is only a fraction of what the states need. the bear rim required is $1.25 billion while this bill zeros out those grants. >> mr. speaker, the house is still not in order.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will withhold. the house will come to order. please remove your conversations from the floor of he house and clear the aisles. the gentleman may resume. . mr. quigley: we now have a chance to do the right thing. equipped with new revelations from the mueller investigation and the realization that president trump will do absolutely nothing to defend our election systems from foreign interference with russia attempting to cast out uncertainty and suspicion over the integrity of our election process, now is the time to double down on our efforts to prevent election hacking. the american people are watching, and we must ensure that we, unlike our president, are on the right side of history during this pivotal moment in our democracy. i want to yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished gentleman from maryland, mr.

hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for the remainder of the five minutes. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, it would be inaccurate to say that this is a vote about process. it is a vote about substance. in fact, mr. quigley's amendment is about one of the most pressing issues of our time. the director of the national intelligence has said there is a flashing red dangerous signal, similar to the one that happened before 9/11. this amendment responds by providing for us to partner with our states to slam the door in the face of the russian bear or any other adversary who seeks to steal the integrity of our elections. the flashing red light calls us to action. surely we can rise above pandering to party and putin to act on behalf of our freedom

and our security. we have sworn an oath to defend our constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hoyer: you have the opportunity to do that today. do so. vote yes on this amendment for our country. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will come to order.

for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i withdraw my reservation. the speaker pro tempore: the reservation is withdrawn. >> mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will come to order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: it contains two important appropriations bills, the interior environmental bill and the financial services bill. the first of threes two bills, the interior bill, funds mportant programs to promote and protect our nation's resources. it helps the threatened wildfires. the bill invests in critical infrastructure that ensures

that american families have access to clean and safe drirninging water. and, yes -- drinking water. and, yes, this bill streamlines our federal government, returning the e.p.a. to the core mission in cutting back regulatory red tape. the second bill, the financial services bill, helps make our nation a safer place to live and helps our economy grow. the bill also targets resources to programs that will boost economic growth and opportunity, particularly for america's small business people as well as protect consumers and investors. in addition, the financial services bill helps enforce our laws, providing necessary funding to support the federal court system, stopping financial and cyber crime and fighting the opioid epidemic. funding these federal programs is a responsibility given to congress by our founding fathers as part of the constitution. mr. speaker, our committee has exercised the power of the purse through robust debate

over the past two days and now it is time to move forward with this legislation. passage of this legislation will put us one step closer to completing all of our appropriations bills as we promised in a timely fashion. these are solid bills that are worthy of your support. i urge my colleagues to reject the motion to recommit and vote yes on the underlying bill and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. >> mr. speaker, order. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to recommit. the question is on that motion. hose in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mr. quigley: mr. speaker, in an attempt to find out what side you are on, i ask a vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise.

a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of the bill and agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal, if ordered. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 182. the nays are 232. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill.

under clause 10 of rule 20, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]