[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 17, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H1670-H1677]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1230
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1029, EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD 
   REFORM ACT OF 2015, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1030, 
                   SECRET SCIENCE REFORM ACT OF 2015

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 138 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 138

       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. 1029) to amend the Environmental Research, 
     Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to 
     provide for Scientific Advisory Board member qualifications, 
     public participation, 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 equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Science, Space, and 
     Technology. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Science, Space, and Technology now printed in 
     the bill, 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 114-10. 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. 
     1030) to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from 
     proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or 
     assessments based upon science that is not transparent or 
     reproducible. 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 Science, Space, and Technology. 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 114-11. 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 B 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania). The gentleman 
from Texas is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
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

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 138 provides for the 
consideration of two important pieces of legislation to create a more 
transparent

[[Page H1671]]

and accountable Environmental Protection Agency, one that works in an 
open manner for all of America. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate 
for each of the bills contained within the rule. Further, amendments 
were made in order for each bill, for a total of six amendments from 
Members of both parties.
  Mr. Speaker, the first bill contained in this rule, H.R. 1029, the 
EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015, brings greater 
accountability and oversight to the Board of appointed advisers which 
the EPA uses to review the scientific basis for its official actions. 
Created in the late 1970s, the Science Advisory Board was intended to 
be a check on the EPA in order to ensure that the Agency's math and 
statistics were all in order before it promulgated rules or 
regulations.
  In fact, the original authorization for the Board made clear that the 
Science Advisory Board was to report to both the Environmental 
Protection Agency and to Congress on its findings. However, over the 
course of the past several decades since its inception, the Science 
Advisory Board has become little more than a rubberstamp for whatever 
the EPA Administrator wishes to accomplish. With the Board members 
being handpicked by the Administrator, they are likely being chosen 
primarily on the basis that they hold the same view of the 
environmental world as whoever the head of the EPA is at any given 
time.
  The bill before us would provide for a more balanced representation 
on the Science Advisory Board, setting out parameters regarding whom 
the Administrator can choose and ensuring that State and local 
governments have representation on the Board so the Board is not 
comprised solely of environmental activists, as has been the case for 
some time now. Indeed, current regulations exclude industry experts 
from serving on the Science Advisory Board but not officials from 
environmental advocacy groups--in other words, special interests. These 
new regulations are necessary to ensure against any appearance of 
impropriety on the Science Advisory Board.
  This legislation becomes even more critical when one considers that 
the numerous regulations currently being considered by the 
Environmental Protection Agency could have enormous impacts on the 
Nation's economy. From proposed carbon regulations to the ratcheting 
down of ozone regulations, the Science Advisory Board has been tasked 
with reviewing the science that will back up some of the most expensive 
rules in the history of the Environmental Protection Agency. It is 
critical that the American people have confidence that the Federal 
Government is doing what is justified. The fear is that, absent 
significant reforms to the Environmental Protection Agency's process, 
this simply will not be the case.
  The second bill contained in this rule, H.R. 1030, the Secret Science 
Reform Act, is also intended to make the Environmental Protection 
Agency's rulemaking process more transparent. This was at one time a 
goal of the current administration's. We seem to have lost that 
somewhere along the way. The legislation states that the Environmental 
Protection Agency may take official action on an environmental 
regulation only if it has identified all of the scientific and 
technical information upon which it has based its decision, and these 
must be publicly available studies that can be independently peer 
reviewed. This would bring the EPA's process in line with how many 
scientific journals operate when they publish peer-reviewed studies.
  Further, the bill is prospective, and it will not interfere with any 
enacted rules or regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency. To 
address concerns expressed during the Science Committee's consideration 
of the bill, the legislation spells out that nothing in these 
requirements would jeopardize any privacy concerns with scientific 
studies. The CDC successfully makes its studies available. It redacts 
personal information, and it does not expose any test subject's 
personal information. The EPA should have no problem similarly 
complying with these requirements.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans are waking up to how much of the United States 
economy the EPA is attempting to regulate--from carbon dioxide to 
ozone--and people are rightly anxious over how these new and, in some 
cases, unprecedented rules will affect some consumers' wallets. It is 
reasonable and expeditious to ensure that the science that the EPA 
relies upon to craft its regulations simply be transparent and simply 
be available for all to see and not for just that select group of 
industry insiders that the EPA deems worthy to see its work products.
  Even the congressional committees that are charged with the 
legitimate oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency's actions 
have had difficulty in obtaining basic scientific justifications for 
the actions taken by the EPA over the last few years. The bills before 
us today will begin the process of making the Environmental Protection 
Agency accountable to the very constituency that it claims to protect--
the American people.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and 
``yes'' on the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, for yielding the 
customary 30 minutes. I rise today in opposition to the rule and the 
underlying bills.
  Mr. Speaker, we are fortunate to have put the most recent Republican 
manufactured crisis of funding the Department of Homeland Security 
behind us. This was not the first crisis caused by the extreme 
rightwing in this body, and I am certain that it won't be the last. In 
looking ahead to the balance of the year, I am sure that my Republican 
colleagues are preparing themselves to continue with the same trend.
  For example, the current suspension of the debt limit, which expired 
on March 15, is a crisis. By the end of this month, Congress has to act 
on the so-called ``doc fix'' or else--crisis. The highway trust fund is 
set to run out of money in about 3 months. There is another crisis. At 
the end of June, the Export-Import Bank will have to be reauthorized--
crisis. That takes us all the way to the end of the fiscal year, in 
September, when we push reset and have to do it all again from the 
beginning. This is no way to govern, and it is not what Americans who 
are struggling to put food on the table want or deserve.
  I haven't mentioned the two bills in question today. That is not by 
accident. It is because they are typical go nowhere, do-nothing pet 
projects. Mr. Speaker, having served on the Rules Committee for as long 
as I have and having made the prediction, as my colleagues on the 
Democratic side of the Rules Committee have repeated, that the 
legislation is going nowhere, I think that we have been confirmed 
virtually every time.
  These two measures are attempts by corporate interests to compromise 
the Environmental Protection Agency's integrity and stock its 
scientific review board with sympathizers. Neither will become law. 
``Secret science'' might sound scary, but the rhetoric has outpaced the 
reality. Furthermore, this bill will not improve the EPA's science or 
make it more transparent. In fact, the bill's impossible standards and 
mechanisms will actually force the Environmental Protection Agency to 
ignore major and consequential studies.
  De-identifying the data is not so simple. Firstly, just because the 
data is de-identified doesn't mean that it will stay de-identified. We 
are all familiar with how much personal information is readily 
available. Only a few pieces of information are required to reconnect 
the de-identified dots across the Internet and social media. Moreover, 
de-identifying the data means removing critical information that often 
renders the results not reproducible, which, under the regime created 
by this bill, would then force the EPA to ignore legitimate and, 
possibly, important studies.

                              {time}  1245

  Dr. Burgess pointed out that it would protect the wallets of some. I 
am equally concerned about the bodies of all.
  The other measure we are considering today, H.R. 1029, will give 
private industry substantial influence over the EPA. As we should have 
learned from the economic collapse, stuffing the regulatory agency with 
industry-affiliated experts is like leaving the wolves to mind the 
flock.

[[Page H1672]]

  Mr. Speaker, I find it most unfortunate that my Republican colleagues 
continue to bring up do-nothing bills that will go nowhere and then 
spend the rest of their time doing everything in their power to oppose 
the President of the United States. Quite frankly, the American people 
deserve better.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes for the purpose of 
response.
  Mr. Speaker, I remind the body that there was an election held in 
November of last year, and the results of that election are now part of 
history. Prior to that election, it is true, there were bills passed in 
the House of Representatives that were submitted to the Senate for 
action, and basically nothing happened. The then-Senate majority leader 
had made a decision that he was going to prevent any legislation from 
passing, he was going to prevent his Members from having to take a vote 
that might be construed as difficult, and he was certainly going to 
prevent the President from being in a position of having to veto any 
legislation.
  I would just remind people that the process is the House and Senate 
each pass their bills; they agree in a conference committee to any 
differences. If that conference report is passed by both Houses, 
indeed, it is submitted to the White House for action, and that action 
may, indeed, be a veto. But you know what, Mr. Speaker? That veto is 
actually an important part of the process.
  Right now people are unaware of where the President is on several 
issues because he has simply never had to render a decision; it has 
always been a full stop over at the Senate majority leader's desk. The 
American people spoke loudly last November that they did not want that 
process to continue.
  Now, one may successfully argue that in 2012 the American people 
voted for divided government, but in 2014 they said: You know, that is 
not working out so well for us, and we are willing to give the Senate, 
to return a voice to the Senate.
  We are now giving the Senate an opportunity. These bills were both 
passed last year. The gentleman from Florida knows that very well. We 
had this very same argument on the floor of the House last fall. Both 
bills essentially died in the Senate. It is my hope now that we will 
give the Senate yet another opportunity. It is a new day, new Senators, 
new majority leader. Let them have a chance to act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BURGESS. I yield myself an additional 2 minutes just to speak 
briefly on the substance of H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act. 
This is a bill that requires the Environmental Protection Agency to 
base its regulations on science, not only on science, but science that 
is available to the public and subject to independent verification. Who 
could be against that?
  That is part of the scientific process. That is part of scientific 
inquiry. You balance things, propose a theory; someone proposes an 
alternate; you get the data, collect the evidence, do the studies, do 
the experiments, make that generally available, and come to a 
conclusion.
  This is a transparency bill. The administration ran on the concept of 
transparency. We are simply trying to help them fulfill that 
obligation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the March 3, 2014, 
statements of the administration on the EPA Science Advisory Board 
Reform Act and Secret Science Reform Act.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


        H.R. 1029--EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015

                  (Rep. Lucas, R-OK and 24 cosponsors)

       The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1029, which would 
     affect the ability of EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) to 
     form panels and perform its essential functions. The SAB, 
     along with other functions, reviews the quality and adequacy 
     of certain scientific and technical information used by EPA 
     or proposed as the basis for EPA regulations. Therefore, it 
     is imperative that the SAB be composed of the most 
     knowledgeable scientific and technical experts available. The 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which governs Federal 
     advisory committees such as the SAB, provides for balanced 
     panels and subcommittees that include experts with diverse 
     backgrounds who represent wide-ranging perspectives.
       H.R. 1029 would negatively affect the appointment of 
     experts and would weaken the scientific independence and 
     integrity of the SAB. For example, the bill would impose a 
     hiring quota for SAB members based on employment by a State, 
     local, or tribal government as opposed to scientific 
     expertise. The bill would also place limitations on SAB 
     members' participation in ``advisory activities that directly 
     or indirectly involve review and evaluation of their own 
     work.'' Determining the practical meaning of ``indirect'' 
     involvement will be difficult and consequently problematic to 
     implement. The provisions on appointment of experts to the 
     SAB and various other requirements could also preclude the 
     nomination of scientists with significant expertise in their 
     fields.
       In addition, H.R. 1029 would add burdensome requirements on 
     the SAB with respect to solicitation of and response to 
     public comments, above and beyond those imposed by FACA. 
     These new requirements would saddle the SAB with workload 
     that would impair its ability to carry out its mandate. 
     Further, H.R. 1029 would add an unnecessary, burdensome, and 
     costly layer of requirements for hazard and risk assessments 
     without defining the scope of these requirements and absent 
     recognition that many high profile assessments already are 
     reviewed by the SAB.
       If the President were presented with H.R. 1029, his senior 
     advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
                                  ____


                   Statement of Administration Policy


              H.R. 1030--Secret Science Reform Act of 2015

                  (Rep. Smith, R-TX and 28 cosponsors)

       The Administration strongly supports regulatory 
     transparency, but strongly opposes H.R. 1030. The bill would 
     impose arbitrary, unnecessary, and expensive requirements 
     that would seriously impede the Environmental Protection 
     Agency's (EPA's) ability to use science to protect public 
     health and the environment, as required under an array of 
     environmental laws, while increasing uncertainty for 
     businesses and States.
       H.R. 1030 could be used to prevent EPA from proposing, 
     finalizing, or disseminating any ``covered action'' until 
     legal challenges about the legitimate withholding of certain 
     scientific and technical information are resolved. Provisions 
     of the bill could be interpreted to prevent EPA from taking 
     important, and possibly legally required, actions, where 
     supporting data is not publicly available, and legal 
     challenges could delay important environmental and health 
     protections. For example, the data underlying some 
     scientifically-important studies is not made broadly 
     available in order to protect the privacy of test subjects, 
     and modeling that EPA uses for a variety of purposes are not 
     EPA property and therefore cannot be publicly released. H.R. 
     1030 could interfere with EPA's ability to take actions based 
     on such data. In short, the bill would undermine EPA's 
     ability to protect the health of Americans, would impose 
     expensive new mandates on EPA, and could impose substantial 
     litigation costs on the Federal government. It also could 
     impede EPA's reliance on the best available science.
       Instead of an overly broad bill that would tie EPA's hands, 
     the Administration urges the Congress to support the 
     Administration's efforts to make scientific and technical 
     information more accessible and regulations more transparent. 
     A bill consistent with the principles expressed in the 
     Administration's Executive Order 13563 ``Improving Regulation 
     and Regulatory Review'' and the December 2010 Office of 
     Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Memorandum on Scientific 
     Integrity, as well as implementation of the Administration's 
     recent open data and public access initiatives (e.g., OSTP's 
     February 2013 policy memorandum on Increasing Access to the 
     Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research) would 
     greatly benefit the American people. EPA also has embarked on 
     several initiatives that enhance access to and transparency 
     of data and science used to inform policy and regulatory 
     decisions.
       If the President were presented with H.R. 1030, his senior 
     advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

  Mr. HASTINGS. I would urge that my colleague who made the comment 
that we don't know where the President is, well, there is where the 
President is.
  I would also ask rhetorically, if it is that all these things that we 
passed that I said were going nowhere last year, why is it that we 
haven't had anything go anywhere this year with both a Republican 
Senate and a Republican House, and neither of these measures is going 
to go anywhere nor are they going to go to conference, and I believe 
people know that.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, we are going to 
offer an amendment to the rule that would allow the House to consider 
the Promoting U.S. Jobs Through Exports Act. This bill would renew the 
Export-Import Bank's charter for an additional 7 years, ensuring 
certainty for U.S. exporters and businesses through 2022.
  To discuss our proposal, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Financial Services and my good friend.

[[Page H1673]]

  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I would like to thank the gentleman 
from Florida for his leadership on this important issue. I applaud him, 
Leader Pelosi, and Whip Hoyer for their efforts to ensure we support 
policies that create American jobs and keep U.S. businesses 
competitive.
  I find the contrast with the bills we consider this week particularly 
striking as the out-of-touch Republican leadership wastes our time with 
measures that deny science and strip workers of critical rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I am in disbelief that we are still debating the future 
of the Export-Import Bank, which we know supports hundreds of thousands 
of jobs and levels the playing field so that American businesses, large 
and small, can compete globally. The facts underscore what is at stake.
  In fiscal year 2014, Ex-Im Bank approved more than 3,400 transactions 
with a total estimated export value of $27.5 billion. This support is 
estimated to have sustained 164,000 export-related U.S. jobs. Over the 
past 5 years, it is estimated that the Bank has created or sustained 
more than 1.2 million private sector jobs. Moreover, all this was 
accomplished as the Bank returned over $674 million back to the 
American taxpayers just last year.
  Over the past two decades, the Bank has generated a surplus of $6.9 
billion for U.S. taxpayers, but for months a handful of extremists in 
this Chamber have refused to accept the numerous and widespread 
benefits provided by the Export-Import Bank to our economy. They have 
ignored these numbers as well as the diverse array of interests who 
support the Bank, such as the United States Chamber of Commerce; the 
National Small Business Association; the National Association of 
Manufacturers; labor unions, such as the AFL-CIO; and many others.
  Instead, they have decided to follow the talking points of extremist 
groups like Heritage Action and the Club for Growth. I find it ironic 
that Republicans are actively working to ensure this important engine 
of job creation closes its doors while also waging war with President 
Obama over the Keystone XL pipeline, which even the most inflated 
estimates say would create far fewer jobs than Ex-Im.
  However, I have been heartened to see a number of frustrated 
Republicans, some of them even Tea Partiers themselves, say enough is 
enough and have chosen to stand up for real workers and businesses 
rather than a handful of ideologues dictating policy from a Washington 
think tank. I applaud the 58 Republicans who courageously have come out 
against their leadership in favor of renewing the Export-Import Bank's 
charter.
  As we take an important vote that will bring Export-Import Bank 
legislation to the floor today, I ask those Republicans to once again 
show their courage, show their leadership, and show your constituents 
who rely on the Export-Import Bank for jobs and economic growth that 
you are willing to do what is best for them and not what is politically 
expedient.
  Democrats want to provide certainty for the businesses and workers 
who rely on the Bank, and that is why I, along with Mr. Heck of 
Washington, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, and Whip Hoyer of Maryland, 
recently introduced legislation to reauthorize, reform, and reenergize 
the Export-Import Bank. The measure takes a sensible approach to 
renewing the Bank, extending its charter for 7 years, increasing its 
lending authority to meet the needs of U.S. exporters, and modernizing 
the Bank's programs to better serve small- and medium-sized businesses.
  I couldn't be prouder of my democratic colleagues, 189 of whom joined 
as cosponsors just a few days after being introduced. Such widespread 
support sends a strong message to America's manufacturers, businesses, 
and workers that Democrats are united in preserving an institution that 
for decades has helped this Nation create jobs and grow the economy; 
and it makes clear that if those supportive Republicans were to join 
us, this Congress could pass an extension of the Export-Import Bank's 
charter today.
  Mr. Speaker and Members, this is the right thing to do for our 
workers and for our businesses and for our Nation. Let's stand up for 
what is right.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute for the purpose of 
a response.
  I appreciate the comments on the Export-Import Bank. I would point 
out to the body that today's rule has under consideration bills dealing 
with regulating the Environmental Protection Agency. The House did pass 
an extension of the Export-Import Bank charter last December that 
follows through until June of this year. There will be ample 
opportunity for us to have this debate and engage in debate as, indeed, 
people of this country want us to do. Today is not the time for that 
debate. Today is the day for deciding whether or not this body will 
further regulate the EPA.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I would think the time to create American 
jobs is anytime, and sooner rather than later.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), my good friend, the ranking member of the 
Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and 
Trade.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Hastings for yielding to me.
  I, too, rise in support of H.R. 1031, the Promoting U.S. Jobs Through 
Exports Act of 2014, which reauthorizes the Export-Import Bank long 
term. I am so proud to have been able to introduce this legislation, 
along with our ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, 
Ms. Waters, and Representatives Heck and Hoyer.
  The bill has 189 Democratic cosponsors. You add that number to the 57 
Republicans that are supportive of Representative Fincher's legislation 
to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank and just do the math there: 189 
and 57, far and above any kind of majority needed to reauthorize this 
important jobs creation, jobs engine, and I would hope that this body 
would move forward on reauthorizing this legislation.
  My district of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, has a very strong manufacturing 
and industrial base. I believe that we are maybe second in the country 
that really depends on a strong manufacturing and industrial base for 
our basic economic activity, and the small manufacturers in Milwaukee 
utilize the Export-Import Bank to export goods and services to places 
like China and India.
  One of the narratives, the untrue narratives about the Export-Import 
Bank is that it is a utility for big companies like Boeing, it is the 
Bank of Boeing. Well, not so much. There is an endless supply chain, 
like the ones that I have visited recently.
  I just recently went to a shop in Milwaukee that employs 30 people--
30 people--yet they export U.S. goods to work on the Panama Canal.

                              {time}  1300

  The president of that company just flat out stated that he doesn't 
exist without the Export-Import Bank. Folks, it is just that simple.
  I have heard many debates and arguments about the importance of 
passing stuff like Keystone, which is debatable as a job creator, and 
where it does create jobs, it is in a very small geographic area--
whereas the Export-Import Bank creates hundreds of thousands of jobs in 
all of our districts.
  Folks, it is just really that simple. The Export-Import Bank is a 
necessary part of our discussion about creating jobs.
  Until we get past the political arguments that are being made about 
hanging the Export-Import Bank out there as low-hanging fruit to 
demonstrate our willingness to cut off so-called corporate welfare so 
that we can then get at cutting off entitlement programs to people, 
until we get past that cynical debate, I don't think that we are going 
to see very much in the way of improving our job creation performance 
in the United States.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes for the purpose of 
a response.
  Talking about job creation is well and good, but we should also 
concern ourselves about job erosion and job loss. I don't know if the 
EPA is the number one Federal agency involved in job erosion and job 
loss, but it is right up there.
  If you talk to anyone at home in your district about what is the 
Federal agency that is responsible for more job destruction, the EPA, 
if not at the top of the list, is right behind some of the others.

[[Page H1674]]

  What we are about today is to regulate the regulator. It is not even 
to regulate the regulator, just have the regulator disclose to us what 
information upon which they are relying to make those regulations.
  Why does the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act matter? Because 
the Science Advisory Board plays a critical role in reviewing the 
scientific information that forms the foundation of costly EPA 
regulations. What is the cost of those EPA regulations, Mr. Speaker? 
The cost is jobs.
  The work we are doing today is important. I encourage my colleagues 
to vote in favor of the rule and in favor of the underlying 
legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 5 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), my 
good friend and a member of the Committee on Financial Services.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the previous 
question in order that I might support Mr. Hastings' effort to offer 
the amendment to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.
  Here is why. The Export-Import Bank is a job-creating machine. Over 
the last 5 years, it has created--by good and scientifically-based 
estimates--about 1.2 million well-paying jobs, good-paying jobs, the 
kind of jobs that you can have and buy a home and send your kids to 
college and that touch every congressional district in the State. The 
Export-Import Bank is a job-creating machine.
  The Export-Import Bank is also a deficit-reducing machine. Not one 
red penny in the last generation has been used to subsidize it. In 
fact, $7 billion has been transferred to the Treasury to reduce the 
deficit. It was $1 billion 2 years ago, $675 million last year, and a 
projected $8 million this year. The Export-Import Bank is a deficit-
reducing machine.
  In addition to that, it is a superperformer, by any private sector 
measure. I come from the private sector. How they conduct their 
business is the envy of the financial services sector.
  It has a default rate of less than--you are hearing this 
correctly--.175 percent and a collection rate over 50 percent. It is a 
superperformer; yet the Export-Import Bank goes away in exactly 105 
days--poof, gone, vanished.
  The gentleman from Texas asked a very good question, a fair question: 
Why now? Well, the answer is: The clock is ticking, tick tock, tick 
tock. There are 105 days to go; yet the committee of jurisdiction has 
not had a hearing, has not scheduled a markup, and has issued no notice 
for either.
  In fact, when we had the committee oversight plan before us, what did 
the committee chair do? He opposed a neutrally worded amendment that 
said, Let's take up the Export-Import Bank and subject it to regular 
order. That is all. Let's go through regular order.
  There is no intent to take up the Export-Import Bank--no hearing, no 
markup, a rejection of regular order. That is why now.
  It has been said, erroneously, that the Export-Import Bank primarily 
benefits Big Business--principally, aerospace. That is so wrong on so 
many levels, I cannot exaggerate it.
  To begin with, 90 percent of the transactions of the Export-Import 
Bank go to small business, but it also fails to understand something, 
this argument coming from people who are supposed to understand the 
private sector.
  Take a company like Boeing, a pride of America. Please remember, 
ladies and gentlemen, there are only two companies on the face of the 
planet that produce large airplanes, and America has but one of them. 
Do you know what they rely on? 12,000 businesses in their supply chain, 
many of which are small.
  Here is the fact. Last week, I was home in a town called Puyallup, 
which most people can't even pronounce. It is a beautiful community of 
38,000 people. It is not anywhere near Renton or Everett, where the 
airplanes are manufactured.
  Do you know how many small businesses there are in the confines of 
the city limits of Puyallup that supply the aerospace industry and 
benefit from the Export-Import Bank? Seventeen, small businesses 
everywhere, but it is also stand-alone small businesses.
  Another in my district is called Pexco. They produce traffic cones 
and the like that they sell internationally. Ex-Im financed $2.3 
million of their product last year.

  I had a couple in my office just a few weeks ago from eastern 
Washington. I don't even represent them. They have agricultural 
products, mint extract and mint oil. Before they began working with the 
Export-Import Bank, one-third of their gross revenues were in exports. 
They began working with them, and their domestic side has grown. Now, 
it is two-thirds.
  I had another agricultural interest in the office. They said that 5 
years ago, 5 percent of their business was export. They did not use the 
Export-Import Bank. They began using it, and it is now 50 percent.
  Finally, ladies and gentlemen, let us remember that there are 60 
developed nations on the face of the Earth, and if we allow our Export-
Import Bank to expire, we will be the only one on the face of the 
planet without an export credit authority.
  Let me tell you, China is rubbing their hands in anticipation 
because, in addition to Airbus--remember, we are 2 to 8 years away from 
China manufacturing a wide-body airplane. They can't wait for the 
Export-Import Bank to expire so they can capture market share.
  Why in the world would we unilaterally disarm? Remember this: We are 
only 5 percent of the world's population.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. If we want to keep and grow our middle class, 
we need to learn how to sell into the growing middle class of the rest 
of the world, and that requires the Export-Import Bank.
  The Export-Import Bank is a job-creating machine, a deficit-reducing 
machine, and a superperformer. The votes are here. It is 190, by the 
way--not 189--and 58 on that side of the aisle.
  There is a part of me, a voice in me that wants to shout: Let my 
people go. The votes are here. It is not scheduled for a hearing. Let 
Mr. Hastings offer his amendment. Let's reauthorize the Export-Import 
Bank.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind Members we are talking 
about the EPA today, a job-destroying agency.
  I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a 
member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I appreciate my friend and colleague from the 
Rules Committee yielding me time to speak on this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak on the rule for H.R. 1030 and H.R. 
1029 because I think, frankly, it fits into what I have just been 
hearing, but I think it fits in sort of maybe a perverse way, but also 
a very good way, because it emphasizes exactly what we need to be 
talking about here, and that is jobs, that is the economy, that is good 
growth, that is good government, that is the things that we are 
supposed to be doing and working on that and finding out why certain 
things don't get done.
  Anybody watching over the last little bit would actually have a 
concern as to what we are doing, and I think it goes back to a simple 
understanding that there is a very clear understanding of why and who 
is offering what amendments and what bills up here. The Republican 
majority is offering a vision in which people are empowered in 
government, not taking the incentives away.
  I think it was summed up very well in a statement just the other day 
from the administration that actually said that their definition, if 
you will, of a burdensome regulation was something that burdened the 
employees of a government agency.
  I think it is very clear from our perspective that what is a 
burdensome regulation is something that burdens American businesses and 
burdens the scientific communities and burdens those in which 
government is putting its finger on and stifling. There is a big 
difference here. All you have to do is watch what is said and watch 
what is done, and you will begin to see that.
  I will not be supporting, as we go back to these bills, all the 
amendments

[[Page H1675]]

made in order under this rule. I am still pleased that we, as a House, 
are considering them as we come to the floor and also that the House 
will ultimately work its will.
  One of the key differences highlighted is in how we as conservatives 
and others in this body look at H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform 
Act. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the committee 
markup of this legislation argued that ``this marks a radical departure 
from longstanding practices.''
  I hope this is the case, for these acclaimed ``longstanding 
practices'' have favored interest group agendas over scientific 
integrity, back rooms over public participation, and sacrificed 
transparency and openness at the altar of political expediency.
  Conservatives in this body believe that Congress should not tolerate 
an administration who refuses to make public the scientific data behind 
numerous EPA regulations, regulations that are crippling the ability of 
businesses to survive in this economic climate created and sustained by 
the failed policies of this administration.
  This administration issued a statement of opposition, as I just 
talked about a moment ago, saying that underlying measures in these 
bills would be ``burdensome'' on the government. I think if our 
Founders were hearing this today, they would stand up and say: That is 
not what we intended.
  Read the document. The document said a limited, structured government 
that supports the people, that supports our welfare, and supports the 
cause of the United States of America, not in a form in which 
government is the problem in finding out these problems and keeping 
from areas in a scientific community, in the business community.
  There is a clear, distinct difference here. What is burdensome on 
government is what then turns around and becomes burdensome on the 
American people. You see, conservatives in Congress try to streamline 
and reform our regulatory system, ensure that cost and benefits of 
regulations are analyzed before it is implemented, and we are told that 
that is burdensome.
  While the conservatives are being criticized for burdensome reforms, 
they are also, at the same time, pushing through $181.5 billion in 
regulations just last year.
  Apparently, the administration has redefined burdensome to mean 
something that most do not. It is just another example of a disconnect.
  Now, what is often said at this point is that conservatives and 
Republicans don't want clean water. They want to destroy the 
environmental integrity. They want bad air and poor traffic control and 
maybe everything else in the world that you want to say because there 
is a belief that government will fix all that.
  There is a proper role for government, but in this environment, let's 
have transparency, let's have openness, let's have public 
participation. Let's not keep stuff away from the American people. That 
is what they are asking for. That is what they expect from their 
government.
  Instead of marginalizing the honest debate about science and being 
about scientific enterprise, instead of saying that they are for 
something that nobody is for, let's be honest about the legislation.
  If you don't really want to talk about the legislation, let's talk 
about everything else in the world. That is a good way to distract. We 
don't want to talk about a process that is broken. We will talk about 
something else.
  No, it is not going to happen this time. I agree with the previous 
speaker. Let my people go. Let my people go. Let the government be 
open. Let the government be transparent.
  Let the government be limited so that the American people are not 
limited, the American people have all they need, and that is the 
purpose of these bills.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am always fascinated when our colleagues 
come to the floor of this great deliberative body and argue against 
government. The last time I looked, all 435 plus 6 of us and the 100 
United States Senators sought public office to be involved in making 
government better.

                              {time}  1315

  The government is the people of the United States. And it is not only 
the respective agencies; it is also our counties, our parishes, our 
districts, our cities that are the government. When we say that, it 
makes it sound as if the government is bad, and defense is the only 
entity that all of us agree is our responsibility.
  But yes, clean water is our responsibility, and, yes, emissions that 
cause harm to the environment and to individuals are our mission. Those 
are responsibilities of government.
  Yes, air traffic control is a responsibility of government. Yes, the 
way our roads are undertaken, or the repair of bridges, yes, that is 
the government.
  So I have a lot of trouble with an antigovernment attitude when, in 
fact, we are just being anti-ourselves.
  Mr. Speaker, we know that science is the formation of conclusions 
upon a foundation of testable observation. Sometimes mistakes are made, 
and they can be construed as valuable because you learn what not to do 
the next time.
  Government, for example, operated NASA and still has some role in 
that, and many of the experiments that were failed experiments led to 
us understanding how to develop the microwave and how to develop 
scientific heart devices that have benefited the American people. Yes, 
that was the government.
  But this Republican-caused crisis was resolved in the same way it was 
a few weeks back, the same way it was resolved the last time the 
Republicans shut down the government. It was resolved on the backs of 
Democrats.
  When the other party decides to work with the Democratic Party, the 
American people benefit from its government, and we saw evidence of 
that in the Homeland Security financing measure.
  Given how often we find ourselves in similar situations, I can't help 
but wonder what hypothesis my friends are trying to test. I do not 
think that seeing how far our security and economic stability can bend 
before breaking is what is meant by ``the great American experiment.''
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule that is 
going nowhere fast, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  First off, I want to bring us back to the issue at hand today; that, 
is the rule for consideration of H.R. 1029 and H.R. 1030.
  H.R. 1029 protects jobs by helping to ensure that important 
scientific advice is balanced and unbiased. The bill promotes public 
participation and encourages the Science Advisory Board to draw on 
State and private sector expertise, fairly simple concepts.
  H.R. 1030 is a transparency bill that simply asks the EPA to show its 
work before implementing regulations that cost billions of dollars and 
destroy jobs. Transparency and reproducibility are basic tenets of 
science. Costly environmental regulations should only be based on data 
that are available to independent scientists and to the public.
  The fact is, Mr. Speaker, if the EPA has nothing to hide, then there 
is no good reason to keep this data from the American people.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of 
the two important bills to provide for an open and transparent 
rulemaking at the Environmental Protection Agency. I certainly thank 
the authors for their thoughtful legislation. I urge my colleagues to 
support both the rule and the underlying bills.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

     An Amendment to H. Res. 138 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

       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.1031) to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the 
     United States, and for other purposes. General debate shall

[[Page H1676]]

     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 Financial Services. 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. 1031.

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of the resolution, if ordered, 
and suspending the rules and passing H.R. 1191.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 181, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 116]

                               YEAS--232

     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 (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     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
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     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, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     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

                               NAYS--181

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Caardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutieerrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujaan, 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
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Saanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velaazquez
     Visclosky

[[Page H1677]]


     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Collins (GA)
     Conyers
     Graves (MO)
     Hinojosa
     Hudson
     Hurt (VA)
     Lewis
     Lummis
     McKinley
     Payne
     Roskam
     Rush
     Sanford
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Smith (WA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Young (AK)
     Zinke

                              {time}  1348

  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York and Mses. DeGETTE, ESTY, and 
CLARKE of New York changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 116 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall 
vote No. 116, ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 138. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  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. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 236, 
noes 180, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 117]

                               AYES--236

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     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)
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     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
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     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
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     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

                               NOES--180

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Caardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutieerrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujaan, 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
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Saanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velaazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Coffman
     Conyers
     Graves (MO)
     Hinojosa
     Hudson
     Lummis
     McKinley
     Payne
     Ribble
     Roskam
     Rush
     Sanford
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Smith (WA)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1355

  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. COFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 117, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________