[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 19 (Wednesday, February 4, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H766-H772]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 527, SMALL BUSINESS REGULATORY 
 FLEXIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2015, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION 
 OF H.R. 50, UNFUNDED MANDATES INFORMATION AND TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2015

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 78 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

[[Page H767]]

                               H. Res. 78

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 527) to amend chapter 6 of title 5, United 
     States Code (commonly known as the Regulatory Flexibility 
     Act), to ensure complete analysis of potential impacts on 
     small entities of rules, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Small Business. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 114-3. That amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered 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, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     50) to provide for additional safeguards with respect to 
     imposing Federal mandates, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified 
     in this section and shall not exceed one hour equally divided 
     and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. An amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     114-4, modified by the amendment printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House and 
     in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as the original bill for the purpose of further 
     amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, 
     as amended, are waived. No further amendment to the bill, as 
     amended, shall be in order except those printed in part C of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such further 
     amendment may be offered 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, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such further 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill, as amended, to the House with such further 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and 
     any further amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 78 provides for a structured 
rule providing for consideration of H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates 
Information and Transparency Act, and H.R. 527, the Small Business 
Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act.
  Mr. Speaker, every year bureaucrats in Washington impose thousands of 
regulatory mandates on local governments and small businesses. Those 
mandates can be costly, stretching city and State budgets and making it 
harder for American businesses to hire.
  The Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, H.R. 50, will 
ensure that the people who write these regulations in Washington know 
exactly what they are asking the American people to pay and whether the 
cost of compliance might make it harder for family businesses to meet 
payroll and stay afloat.
  H.R. 50 will force Washington to think carefully about regulatory 
costs before it passes them on to Americans. This bill is about 
transparency and accountability and is something Democrats and 
Republicans can all support.
  In 1995, Congress passed the bipartisan Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 
UMRA, legislation designed to prevent the Federal Government from 
imposing unfunded mandates onto State and local governments or private 
businesses without policymakers or the public knowing the cost of such 
policies.
  UMRA's main objective was to force the Federal Government to estimate 
how much unfunded mandates would cost local governments and businesses 
and rein in out-of-control mandates. UMRA ensured public awareness of 
the crushing financial burden of Federal mandates on employers and 
State and local governments. However, UMRA has not been amended since 
1995, and some subtle changes are needed to preserve and improve on the 
Act's initial purposes.

                              {time}  1245

  UMRA was a good bill, but over time, some shortcomings became 
apparent such that the Clinton and, later, Obama administrations issued 
executive orders to fix the loopholes within it.
  H.R. 50 has bipartisan DNA, Mr. Speaker. It codifies those 
administrative fixes championed by Presidents Clinton and Obama and 
promotes good government, accountability, and transparency.
  As a testament to this fact, the bill is cosponsored by two of my 
Democratic colleagues here in the House, Representatives Collin 
Peterson and Loretta Sanchez. I owe them a debt of gratitude for their 
efforts in promoting this commonsense bill.
  The text of H.R. 50 has passed the House on a bipartisan basis three 
times in the 112th and 113th Congresses. The bill most recently was 
favorably reported by the House Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee.
  A common refrain in this business is that ``nobody wants to see how 
the sausage is made,'' meaning that the process of drafting and passing 
legislation is so ugly that it would repulse people. In this case, I 
disagree.
  I am extremely proud of this bill, and I am proud of the process by 
which it has been advanced in the House. I have had the pleasure of 
working with colleagues from both sides of the aisle on this measure, 
and I appreciate their support and counsel.
  The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 was a model for 
bipartisanship, and my hope is that this bill leaves a similar legacy. 
I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of this aisle to support the 
rule and the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, Dr. Foxx, for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I also express through you my wishes for her recovery, and I also 
appreciate her patriotism in doing her duty to God and country here 
today despite her respiratory duress. I hope that goes

[[Page H768]]

noted, that she is doing a great job representing her party on this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying 
bills, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act and the 
Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act.
  The titles of these bills, while lengthy, seem to suggest that 
somehow these efforts are designed to increase transparency or help 
small business. Their actual impact is quite frankly the opposite.
  By allowing rules to be written behind closed doors by big businesses 
and effectively preventing Federal agencies from promoting the national 
interests as they are supposed to and adding additional bureaucratic 
red tape and paperwork, these bills represent an assault on the health 
and safety of our Nation's families and threaten to drown our 
government in mountains and mountains of unnecessary paperwork.
  I think that the release of the President's budget this week shows a 
contrast between the priorities of both parties' agendas. The 
President's budget focused on Main Street, offering new ideas for how 
we can meet the infrastructure needs of our country and reform our 
corporate tax system to make American businesses more competitive.
  Unfortunately, what we continue to see here in this body from the 
Republicans is a ``Groundhog Day'' scenario where every day, every 
week--it is like the movie--we are talking about the same thing over 
and over again.
  We have acted on repealing the Affordable Care Act 56 times in this 
body. Here, we are back with another set of bills that echo other bills 
again and again and again.
  Now, I understand why many people want to do this once and go through 
it. People ran on repealing ObamaCare, and people ran on passing these 
bills. Once they are done, we will see what the other body does.
  But to keep coming back, rather than dealing with the critical 
national priorities, I think simply shows a detachment from reality. 
That is one of the reasons the public holds this body in such low 
regard.
  The bill that we considered 2 weeks ago added 65 new analytical 
requirements to the process of rulemaking--more red tape, more hurdles. 
I think what we are seeing here today is maybe that is not enough red 
tape. We are now looking at bills that allow big business to weigh in 
before the public, creating even more hurdles before regulations become 
public and are implemented.
  H.R. 50 would effectively require agencies to consult with the 
private sector before the public is even made aware of the bill, let 
alone engaged in the rulemaking. This blocks transparency and handicaps 
public input.
  I agree we want to make sure that business has the opportunity to 
weigh in, but we want to make sure that every stakeholder in a 
rulemaking process has the opportunity to weigh in equally.
  In my State of Colorado, I would be concerned about the erosion of 
our protection of our great natural areas like Rocky Mountain National 
Park which is a protected site. We celebrated its 100th anniversary as 
a national park just last week.
  In those 100 years, the Rocky Mountains have been thriving. If you 
visit the park today, you can find streams, elk, bighorn sheep, and 
fields of wildflowers; but if we hadn't designated the park a national 
treasure and created a comprehensive management plan for its 
protection, we might very well have lost not only something that 
relates to our national pride and is beautiful but, frankly, is the 
economic driver in Estes Park and Grand County for much of the economic 
activity in and around the National Park.
  H.R. 50 would threaten the ability of the National Park Service to 
create the kind of management plan that the economy has thrived under 
in my home State of Colorado and in my district. It would essentially 
create a veto power for legislators and interests that don't believe in 
the protection of public lands or are willing to threaten the health of 
our families for enhancement of their bottom line. There is always 
going to be somebody that objects.
  Again, we have a thriving tourism economy relating to Rocky Mountain 
National Park, but I am sure there is some company somewhere that would 
have some interest that is countervailing to the interests of job 
creation in our community, and that is why we need to have a 
transparent and accessible process of listening to stakeholders in as 
expeditious a way as possible.
  We need a system that allows the Fort Collins native who hikes 
through the Rockies every weekend or the New Yorker who visits the 
snowcapped mountains every spring the ability to participate in 
protecting those natural resources and the protection of our public 
health.
  We need to listen to the small businesses, the hospitality sector, 
and the restaurants and lodges that serve our tourism communities, but 
by allowing an unfair advantage to out-of-State corporate interests, we 
threaten the very principle that makes us American, the ability to 
participate in our decisions of government at the level closest to 
where we are affected.
  H.R. 50 is a dangerous precedent for policy. It allows additional red 
tape to be thrown at government agencies, representing unnecessary 
delays and costs that prevent us from creating jobs and growing our 
economy.
  We need to move forward with a middle class agenda for our country 
rather than continuing to live in this Groundhog Day scenario of 
repetitious bills that don't discuss how to grow our economy or grow 
the middle class.
  Yesterday, this body attempted to repeal the Affordable Care Act for 
the 56th time. Today, the Republicans are making two attempts at what I 
consider to be a very similar thing, damage the regulatory process at 
all costs, which we already did and we are doing again.
  They want to see additional red tape and bureaucracy added--whether 
it is clean air, whether it is clean water, whether it is consumers, 
whether it is protecting our children--regardless of the particular 
area with which we operate.
  Instead of having a cumulative look at regulations, we should have a 
look at cumulative impacts of all the legislation that has been brought 
before this body and how that impacts small businesses and regulations.
  Earlier this year, the House passed the Regulatory Accountability 
Act. That bill alone added 65 new checkpoints to the regulatory 
process. This bill would prevent transparency and allow big business to 
weigh in on regulations--before small businesses, before consumers, 
before other stakeholders--and add an additional tier and red tape to 
the regulatory process.
  We need to move forward with improving our regulatory structure. I 
don't think there is any disagreement about that. Some of that can be 
done through executive action and some in a collaborative, bipartisan 
way to streamline the regulatory process to reduce hurdles for small 
businesses while meeting the goals of protecting the American public. 
Unfortunately, these bills do neither of those.
  I encourage my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying 
bills.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank my colleague from Colorado for his kind comments 
about me and my health. I appreciate all condolences.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution also provides for consideration of H.R. 
527, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 
2015, which is important legislation to improve the Federal 
Government's treatment of small businesses.
  Ensuring we are providing the best environment possible to small 
businesses is vital to support a sector which employs nearly half of 
America's private sector workers and generates 63 percent of new 
private sector jobs.
  As a former owner of a nursery, I know well the joys and trials of 
running a small business, and I am pleased that the House is 
considering these vital provisions.
  Small businesses do not have the staff or background to identify and 
comply with ever-growing piles of red tape. Federal regulations 
disproportionately impact small businesses which led Congress to enact 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
  The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to account better 
for

[[Page H769]]

the impacts of proposed regulations on small businesses and other small 
entities and to tailor regulations to minimize adverse impacts on these 
entities.
  Unsurprisingly, agencies have failed to comply with these 
requirements in full. They have taken advantage of loopholes, failed to 
acknowledge the entirety of impacts for proposed rules, and issued 
rules that continue to harm small businesses. That failure necessitates 
our actions this week to consider H.R. 527, the Small Business 
Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act.
  This legislation requires Federal agencies to consider the potential 
``economic impact'' of proposed rules on small businesses and 
nonprofits. It also mandates a 10-year plan to review all rules 
determined to have ``a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.''
  That will ensure past regulations will not remain on the books 
unexamined and able to burden small businesses for decades.
  The legislation also expands ``regulatory flexibility analysis'' 
requirements which are currently used to explain the reasoning behind a 
proposed rule, identify duplicative rules, and explain any 
recordkeeping or other requirements that may be imposed on small 
businesses or other small entities.
  It also requires the Small Business Administration's chief counsel 
for advocacy to develop interagency rules for conducting flexibility 
analyses.
  These changes will ensure that future regulations are tailored to 
minimize their impact on small businesses. This will allow small 
businesses to spend more of their investments and time hiring new 
employees and growing their businesses rather than complying with 
unnecessary burdens from Federal regulations.
  H.R. 527 is a simple, commonsense mandate for the executive branch to 
work together with small businesses and design smarter, less burdensome 
rules that work for the American people, and I commend it to my 
colleagues for their support.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will 
offer an amendment to the rule to allow for consideration of 
legislation that would help veterans make it in America by establishing 
a pilot program to encourage the hiring of veterans in manufacturing 
jobs.
  To discuss our thoughtful proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), a leader on veterans issues.
  Ms. DelBENE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so that we can consider my proposal to boost education and job 
training for our veterans.
  Everyone in this Chamber can agree that we have an obligation to care 
for those who risk their lives and make sacrifices for our freedoms.
  Unfortunately, there are too many veterans struggling to find work 
today, and we are not doing enough to help. Last year, the unemployment 
rate for post-9/11 veterans stood at more than 7 percent, substantially 
higher than the national rate; and across all age groups, there were 
more than 500,000 veterans out of work in 2014.
  This is unacceptable. Congress must do more to meet its commitment to 
these brave men and women. That is why I encourage my colleagues to 
join me and more than 40 of my colleagues in supporting the 
Manufacturing Jobs for Veterans Act.
  My bill will establish State-based manufacturing employment programs 
to provide skills training in manufacturing jobs for veterans and 
servicemembers who are reentering the workforce.
  These pilot programs would support on-the-job training opportunities, 
apprenticeships, and certification classes for unemployed veterans; and 
it will encourage manufacturers to recruit, hire, and train our 
Nation's heroes.
  With as many as 600,000 unfilled manufacturing jobs, we have an 
opportunity to connect employers with a pipeline of skilled, capable 
workers.

                              {time}  1300

  Instead of voting on yet another partisan bill, we should be focused 
on real solutions that help the American people, grow our economy, and 
strengthen the middle class. I urge my colleagues to defeat the 
previous question so we can take up this important bill and put our 
veterans back to work.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that, and I thank 
my good friend from North Carolina, who, as has already been stated on 
the floor, is powering through today, standing strong for the values 
that I think really would not be expressed any differently except to 
say, Mr. Speaker, that there is critical national interest here.
  There is probably today, on the floor, as we talk about these bills--
and yes, it is sort of a Groundhog Day, and I will get to that in a 
moment, because it seems like every time we, from the Republican side 
of the aisle, want to talk about jobs and kitchen tables and making 
better improvements for life and getting rid of regulatory burdens that 
would help or putting controls on government, we are accused of wanting 
to spoil the environment, kill trees, make flowers not bloom, I mean, 
whatever it may be, but the issue, that is Groundhog Day.
  So if people want a true Groundhog Day analogy, here is the Groundhog 
Day analogy. The analogy is, when we want to put constraints on 
government from interfering and getting in the way of its proper role 
of helping business and helping our country do what it is supposed to 
do, or we are wanting to control, through government, this process and 
do so in a way that is detrimental to those moms and dads who get up 
every day and families and single moms and grandparents and aunts and 
uncles, all these folks who just simply say, we are not really as 
overly concerned about what you are doing in Washington, D.C., as I am 
concerned about what you are doing in Hometown, USA, where I get up 
every morning.
  It has been said many times, Mr. Speaker, already this afternoon, and 
the issue is, we are putting more burden and red tape on America.
  No. What this bill does--and these two bills that I speak in favor of 
in this rule, these two bills that we are doing, H.R. 50 and H.R. 527--
is actually controlling government. Instead of letting it get in the 
way and put unnecessary or quicker burdens on those again, we are 
simply saying, Whoa. There is a proper place. There is a proper place 
for regulation. There is a proper place for a limited government role 
that our Founders made.
  However, when that role steps over and begins to not only burden 
business but instead the man or woman who wants to get up in the 
morning and chase a dream of starting a new business, as I once did, 
when we started a scrapbook store, you know, just to get a little bit 
of money, we were able to do so.
  But others who want to go get a loan, they have to go through the 
bureaucratic red tape that is now keeping them from starting the small 
business jobs that employ people on a day-to-day level. We are simply 
saying, Government, it is time to take a breath. It is time to step 
back and see the impact that you are having.
  Granted, some regulation is good. I will give that to my Democratic 
colleagues. But overregulation and burdensome regulation tears down our 
economy.
  So if that is the Groundhog Day argument for this week we want to 
have, I will have it every day of the week. The Members and people who 
watch this floor can see you have a party that wants to restrict 
business and jobs and government in such a way that it throttles the 
economy or a party which is putting forth solutions and will put 
forward as many times as we have to to remind the American people that 
it is people and small business and jobs, the everyday Americans who 
create the jobs in this country, not government.
  A business owner that I just recently spoke to had 10 employees, and 
he said he was getting ready to hire another employee. I said, Well, 
great. That is great. 10 percent growth. One more employee.
  He said, But you have got to understand. I am having to hire 
somebody, and all they are going to be doing is filling out government 
paperwork.
  In other words, Mr. Speaker, this is not someone who can go out and 
sell

[[Page H770]]

their widget or perform their service. This is someone who will sit in 
an office and simply make sure that they are complying with the Big 
Brother overreach of government. That is not job creation. That is 
burdensome on business.
  Let's get them where they can create jobs and go out and sell their 
product, do their services.
  We have a bank in my area. You are talking about unfunded mandates, 
regulatory rulemaking. A bank in my area, on their regular regulatory 
inspection, they were waiting for the bank examiners to come, the folks 
to come in and do their audit.
  The problem they had was this: when the government showed up, they 
had more people coming to inspect their books than they had employed in 
their main office. And the government agency complained that they did 
not have enough room for them to do their job.
  I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. It is not up to small business to make sure 
government can do its job. It is up to government to provide the 
atmosphere so small business can do its job, and that is what we are 
here about today.
  So when we look at this, I urge my colleagues, don't get sidetracked 
on other issues. Look at it for what it is. It is government getting 
the constraint, not the American people. It is protecting the American 
people from not good legislation, good litigation. It is the stuff that 
we need to work on.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I state these are good bills. Let's state it 
clearly. Groundhog Day is exactly what it is: for government, or let's 
let the people live.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our colleague from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding this time and for her good 
work on this legislation.
  I came to the floor today just to tell you a little bit about why I 
think this legislation is so very important.
  When I first came to Congress many years ago, we had a Democratic 
Governor of Tennessee, Ned Ray McWherter, and he was a fine Governor. 
He would have the Tennessee congressional delegation to the Governor's 
mansion once a year. And he would always start those meetings off--
every single year he would say: Please, no more unfunded mandates. 
Please, no more unfunded mandates.
  He said that most of what the State was having to do now were things 
that were required by the Federal Government, and it was causing the 
States great financial difficulties, and it was turning what was 
supposed to be a Federal system that our Founding Fathers envisioned, 
it was turning it totally upside down.
  This bill is a very reasonable, moderate, commonsense effort to make 
good on the original Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. All it is 
trying to do is ensure that Congress and Federal agencies are fully 
informed about the impact of these Federal mandates.
  I urge my colleagues to support this very fine effort to make our 
system better.

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  When you hear the gentleman from Georgia or the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina talk about the intent behind these bills, they sound 
great. We all want a streamlined regulatory process and to help make it 
more efficient.
  Unfortunately, when you look at what these bills do, they do the 
opposite. They add another tier to regulation, with Big Business having 
a new say in and above what small businesses and community members can 
do. They add red tape and legal requirements to regulation that don't 
exist now under statute.
  It, again, seems to me like the opposite of trying to get input so 
our regulations best affect the needs of each community, and we have 
diverse needs across this country.
  My district is 62 percent Federal land, so when decisions are made on 
Federal land, like a travel management plan, and on where people can 
bike and where they can hunt and fish, we want to have our say. The 
last thing we want is some out-of-state corporate interest determining 
in some process before we even get our say on how these Federal lands 
are used.
  It is absolutely critical that we empower our communities, and this 
bill does the opposite in the name of adding more bureaucracy and red 
tape to the regulatory process, presumably, in an attempt to delay or 
make it less effective than it is.
  Now, we value, as Americans, the work that the Clean Water Act does, 
the Clean Air Act, the EPA, our essential protections around public 
health. They are very, very important. And I think our colleagues agree 
that they don't want to take those on head on.
  But this bill would prevent some of those very agencies from doing 
the work that we have charged them to do, keeping our air clean, our 
water clean, and they need to be able to do that work and involve local 
impact in making sure that they do it in a way that protects American 
health and helps grow our economy and create jobs.
  We need to make sure that we don't have dumping of industrial waste 
in the Colorado River, poisoning millions of recreational users. We 
want to make sure that drilling sites don't use chemical compounds that 
are toxic or cause birth defects.
  We can and we must do better. The march of science moves forward. If 
there are thoughtful improvements to the regulatory process that will 
help reduce costs and reduce red tape, rather than add red tape, we are 
happy to have those discussions. But, unfortunately, these bills fall 
short of that mark. That is why I oppose the rule and the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Amodei). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. My colleague, Ms. DelBene, has offered a concept around a 
pilot program to encourage the hiring of veterans in manufacturing 
jobs, the type of middle class agenda that the American public wants 
this Congress to work on, rather than one that cuts them out of the 
very rulemaking that is designed to protect us Americans from our 
health hazards and protect our public lands.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' defeat the previous question, 
vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying bill, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that Republicans 
are not opposed to regulations. We just want regulations to be done 
right.
  These are modest reforms, supported by Republicans and Democrats 
alike. Some of these changes merely codify executive orders issued by 
the last two Democrat Presidents.
  Mr. Speaker, as proud as I am of this legislation, I realize its 
passage today won't be front-page news. I understand that ``Lawmakers 
Band Together to Close Technical Loopholes in UMRA'' isn't exactly a 
riveting headline. But what we are doing here is important.
  In Congress, we often focus our energy and attention on those issues 
that are most divisive and controversial, and I understand that. There 
are real, substantive disagreements between the two parties and among 
the American people.
  But Congress must do the hard things. Every now and then, we get an 
opportunity to do something easy. This should be easy. Reforms in this 
bill are low-hanging fruit.
  Some of my colleagues have suggestions for improvement and have 
offered amendments to these bills. Great. I welcome their suggestions.
  Those amendments will be discussed in an open and transparent 
process. Not a single proposed amendment to either bill, Democrat or 
Republican, has been excluded by this rule.
  I hope, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues will join me in supporting 
these sensible bills that will enhance transparency, accountability, 
and awareness of Federal mandates and improve the Federal Government's 
treatment of small businesses.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying bills.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

[[Page H771]]

      An Amendment to H. Res. 78 Offered by Mr. Polls of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     344) to provide for the establishment of a pilot program to 
     encourage the employment of veterans in manufacturing 
     positions. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 344.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242, 
nays 174, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 59]

                               YEAS--242

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     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
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     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 (GA)
     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
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     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
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     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
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--174

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle (PA)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lawrence
     Lewis
     Lieu (CA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley

[[Page H772]]


     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)
     Takai
     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--17

     Chu (CA)
     Curbelo (FL)
     Duckworth
     Frankel (FL)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Huffman
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Nolan
     Nunnelee
     Rangel
     Roe (TN)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1339

  Mr. SCHIFF changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 59 I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted yes.
  Stated against:
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 59 had I been 
present, I would have voted No.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for roll 
call vote 59. If I had been present for this vote, I would have voted: 
Nay on roll call vote 59.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent earlier today during 
roll call vote 59. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on 
roll call vote 59, the motion on ordering the previous question on the 
Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 50 and H.R. 527.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 243, 
noes 179, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 60]

                               AYES--243

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     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)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     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 (GA)
     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 (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     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
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     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
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--179

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle (PA)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Hahn
     Hastings
     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
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu (CA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     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)
     Nadler
     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
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     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--11

     Benishek
     Chu (CA)
     Duckworth
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Lee
     Lofgren
     Nunnelee
     Poe (TX)
     Roe (TN)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1348

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 60 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted Yes.

                          ____________________