[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 120 (Tuesday, July 28, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H8539-H8545]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1245
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 427, REGULATIONS FROM THE EXECUTIVE 
 IN NEED OF SCRUTINY ACT OF 2015; PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE 
  PERIOD FROM JULY 30, 2015, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 7, 2015; AND FOR OTHER 
                                PURPOSES

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 380 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 380

       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. 427) to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, to provide that major rules of the executive 
     branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint 
     resolution of approval is enacted into law. 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 the Judiciary. 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 the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
     the bill modified by the amendment printed in part A of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. 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. 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.  On any legislative day during the period from July 
     30, 2015, through September 7, 2015--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 3.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 4.  Each day during the period addressed by section 2 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for 
     purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 
     1546).
       Sec. 5.  Each day during the period addressed by section 2 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for 
     purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.
       Sec. 6.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of July 30, 2015, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though 
     under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall 
     consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the 
     designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this 
     section.
       Sec. 7.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     with respect to any resolution reported through the 
     legislative day of July 30, 2015.
       Sec. 8.  For purposes of the joint meeting to receive Pope 
     Francis on September 24, 2015, only the following persons 
     shall be admitted to the Hall of the House or rooms leading 
     thereto:
        (a) Members of Congress and Members-elect.
       (b) The Delegates and the Resident Commissioner.
       (c) The President and Vice President of the United States.
       (d) Justices of the Supreme Court.
       (e) Elected officers of the House.
       (f) The Parliamentarian.
       (g) The Architect of the Capitol.
       (h) The Librarian of Congress.
       (i) The Secretary and Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate.
       (j) Heads of departments.
       (k) Other persons as designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous materials on House Resolution 380, currently under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule 
forward on behalf of the Committee on Rules. This rule provides for a 
robust amendment debate on an issue of critical national importance. 
This rule provides for the consideration of H.R.

[[Page H8540]]

427, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 
2015.
  The Committee on Rules met on this measure yesterday evening and 
heard testimony from both the chairman and the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, in addition to receiving amendment 
testimony.
  This rule brought forward by the committee is a structured rule. 
There were 18 amendments total submitted to the Committee on Rules. Of 
those submitted, I am pleased to say that the full House will debate 
and vote on 10 of those amendments.
  This legislation also went through regular order in the committee. 
During the committee markup, eight amendments were debated and voted 
on, including one I offered and that the committee had actually agreed 
to.
  This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary. I appreciate the hard work of the Committee on the Judiciary 
Chairman, Bob Goodlatte, and his full committee and subcommittee staff 
in bringing forward H.R. 427.
  I strongly support this rule and the underlying legislation because, 
when we reform our Nation's regulatory system, we will jump-start the 
engine of our economy; and when our economy gets up and going, our 
families flourish.
  What does this administration produce more than 60 of every day? Here 
is a hint: It is not jobs. The answer lies in the heart of many woes 
facing small businesses and established industries.
  What they produce every day is regulations. The goal of any 
regulation should be to achieve a benefit that would not be possible 
without it, designed in such a fashion that the achieved benefit far 
outweighs the cost, but our administration has lost sight of this goal, 
and America's economic engine is paying the price.
  Our current Federal Government designs regulations that are often 
unnecessary and achieve little to no benefit, but at very high cost. 
The rules have become so skewed that this administration's regulators 
are at war with American businesses.
  Industries such as manufacturing and technology are fighting to 
compete in a global market, but first, they must survive the regulatory 
beast that is strangling innovation and growth.
  This administration is legislating through regulation yet decries the 
REINS Act and calls it an unprecedented requirement. When you 
circumvent Congress and exploit the rulemaking process in order to, 
one, make law and, two, make law in contradiction to the wishes and 
needs of the American people, you should expect unprecedented 
responses.
  In just the first 7 days of 2015--just the first 7 days of 2015--the 
administration unveiled 300 new rules. Over the Memorial Day weekend, 
the administration quietly published the spring 2015 Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. What it contained was so disheartening to the 
American people and so destructive to small business that it didn't go 
unnoticed.
  The agenda showed that the Federal departments and agencies have 
3,260 rules in the midst right now of the rulemaking process. 
Unfortunately, it is not just the sheer number of regulations that is 
astounding; it is also the oppressive cost.
  One of these 3,260 rules I mentioned is predicted to be one of the 
costliest regulations ever put forward, the EPA's national ozone 
standard. A recent analysis found the cost of this one regulation to be 
upwards of $140 billion. It will cost my home State of Georgia over 
11,000 jobs.
  To add insult to injury, the first line of H.R. 427 Statement of 
Administration Policy states:

       The administration is committed to ensuring that 
     regulations are smart and effective and tailored to further 
     the statutory goals in the most cost-effective and efficient 
     manner.

  This is the statement from the administration on why they oppose H.R. 
427.
  I cannot believe that a single regulation promulgated by this 
administration with $140 billion of cost was put forward in the most 
cost-effective manner, and a regulation costing 11,000 jobs in Georgia 
alone is hardly smart. The Statement of Administration Policy also 
claims that the underlying legislation would create business 
uncertainty.
  I encourage this administration to use the infamous pen and phone to 
actually ask businesses what creates uncertainty for them because, when 
small businesses across the country came to Congress last week as part 
of National Federation of Independent Business lobbying day, their top 
legislative priority was regulatory relief. These are small-business 
owners who sat with us and said: Here is what we are facing in trying 
to get people jobs.
  The 3,000-plus regulations in the works by this administration create 
the uncertainty, not this body's effort to require agencies to submit 
the most costly regulations to Congress for approval. The underlying 
bill applies only to regulations with a $100 million impact or greater.
  The American people do not elect this administration's regulators--or 
any administration's regulators for that matter. They elect us in this 
body to represent them. This bill allows us to do so properly.
  The system is broken. The system has failed the American people. The 
REINS Act is the first step toward restoring proper order and even 
sanity toward our regulatory framework.
  The administration states that Executive Order No. 13563 requires 
careful cost-benefit analysis, but they don't explain why only 7 rules 
out of the thousands had cost-benefit analysis in 2013 and only 14 
rules had that in 2012.
  This administration's regulators have stated publicly that they are 
not going to sit around and wait for Congress--so much for respecting 
the powers enshrined in our Constitution and, thus, the reason that we 
need this legislation and why this rule should be approved.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, 2 legislative days--really a day-and-a-half now--remain 
before Congress recesses for 5 weeks. Here we are, yet again, 
considering a piece of partisan legislation designed to fill up floor 
time, which has little to no chance at all of becoming law.
  It is unconscionable that the majority continues to waste 
legislators' and the American people's time with bills such as the 
Regulation from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act--they really do 
name things nice around here, the REINS Act--when critically important 
work is left to be done.
  Just a few moments ago, the minority whip spoke to three issues; I 
include them in my commentary, but largely, one that all of us ought be 
interested in is the highway trust fund, which will become insolvent on 
August 1 if those of us sent here to Washington to govern do not come 
up with a solution.
  Instead of focusing on priorities like eliminating corporate tax 
loopholes to ensure that we have the money to fund projects to repair 
our Nation's deteriorating roads and bridges, House Republicans passed 
yet another short-term patch that the Senate has refused to take up. 
The majority's dysfunction and inability to govern is having a real 
impact on hard-working Americans.
  Today marks the 204th day of the Republican-led 114th Congress. In 
the nearly 6 months that have passed, the majority has compromised the 
financial security of American companies by failing to reauthorize the 
Export-Import Bank's charter; avoided passing a long-term 
transportation and infrastructure bill; passed pointless legislation 
designed to cut critical funding from local police departments and 
communities in lieu of taking up comprehensive immigration reform; 
refused, they did, to bring up the student loan refinancing bill; and 
perhaps most abhorrent to some of us, voted four times in support of 
the Confederate battle flag, a symbol of hate and intolerance that has 
no place on any of our public lands.

                              {time}  1300

  The days leading up to a month-long congressional recess should be 
spent debating and voting on the important issues that our constituents 
sent us here to address--as an example, restoring the Voting Rights 
Act, bolstering our economy through a long-term highway bill, and 
guaranteeing that jobs are created and sustained.

[[Page H8541]]

  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 427 is yet another partisan measure that Republican 
leadership has selected for consideration, despite its clear 
constitutional violations and with the knowledge that it stands an 
almost certain Presidential veto.
  It is, therefore, unclear to me why we are spending precious time on 
this bill. We already have the power to disapprove proposed rules; we 
have the power to limit delegations of authorities to agencies; we have 
the power to control the appropriations; and we have the power to stay 
the effect of specific rules and hold oversight hearings. It seems to 
me that, in addition to these tools being quite powerful, they also 
comply with the doctrine of separation of powers and, therefore, have 
the added benefit of being constitutional.
  The REINS Act would require both Houses of Congress to approve every 
major rule, many of which are highly technical ones authored by experts 
such as scientists, physicians, engineers, and economists.
  There simply isn't enough time for Congress to hold the hearings and 
conduct the research necessary to weigh in on these complicated 
matters. The individuals tasked with making these difficult regulatory 
decisions are certainly more qualified than most, if not all of us here 
in this room, and it is for this precise reason that Congress wisely 
delegated this regulatory authority to such experts.
  Politicizing this process will not only permit industry 
representatives with deep pockets to have an overwhelming influence on 
whether major rules go into effect, it will make it nearly impossible 
for agencies to implement rules regulating consumer health and product 
safety, environmental protections, workplace safety, and financial 
services industry misconduct. The enactment of this legislation would, 
in my opinion, do immeasurable disservice to the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time 
as he may consume to the good gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), a 
member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend from Florida asked a rhetorical question. He 
said: Why spend precious time on this? And here is the reply: Because 
our constituents' time is precious. Our constituents' time in trying to 
comply with regulations is precious.
  Before I get there, let me just give you a little bit of a history, 
Mr. Speaker, about my understanding of the genesis of the REINS Act. It 
is interesting from a process point of view and a substance point of 
view.
  From a process point of view, my understanding is that this came out 
of a townhall meeting that was hosted and sponsored by our former 
colleague, Congressman Geoff Davis from Kentucky. He gathered a group 
of people together and, as I understand the story, one of the 
constituents raised his hand and he posed this question. He said: 
Congressman, how is it possible that the Environmental Protection 
Agency is contemplating a rule that is so controversial it couldn't 
pass Congress? How is that even conceivable under our governance 
structure that unelected bureaucrats are able to accomplish something 
that the elected Representatives of the people have said ``no'' to?
  Congressman Davis in a very thoughtful way began to take that in. Out 
of it, he began to work with other people and put together the REINS 
Act, Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny, that says 
this. It says that over the years, one of the weaknesses of Congress is 
that this institution has delegated too much responsibility to 
executive agencies. That is at the base of what we are talking about. 
This is an issue of delegated authority. And since it was Congress' 
mistake in terms of atrophying its authority over a period of time, the 
remedy then falls on Congress to reclaim that authority.
  So the gentleman from Georgia is proposing that we support this rule 
around H.R. 427, and it says this: If there is a regulation that has 
more than a $100 million impact on the economy, then that regulation 
ought not be foisted on the economy without discussion and approval by 
elected Representatives in Congress.
  Now, there is a straw man argument that is out there as it relates to 
this. I haven't heard it on the floor today, but I might hear it if we 
continue to listen to the debate, particularly during the amendment 
process and so forth.
  Here is the straw man argument. The straw man argument is: If you are 
in favor of the REINS Act, then you don't want any regulations 
whatsoever. You want the Wild West, where only the strong survive. That 
is a straw man. That is ridiculous.
  What the REINS Act says is, if you are going to have a regulation, it 
ought to be thoughtful, it ought to be well structured, it ought to be 
well debated, and it ought not be a bureaucrat sitting on the seventh 
floor of a gray building on Independence Avenue that is pursuing an 
agenda--and haven't we seen plenty of that, by the way--pursuing an 
agenda, an agenda that couldn't pass this place, an agenda that 218 
Members of the House of Representatives and a majority of the Senate 
are not going to support, but an agenda that a bureaucrat with a 
political agenda and so forth is trying to move forward.
  Now, these numbers are staggering. According to the Competitive 
Enterprise Institute, the annual cost of complying with government 
regulations is $1.8 trillion. Think about the downward pressure of 
that.
  What the gentleman from Georgia is saying--and other supporters of 
this--is let's take President Obama's admonition to the Congress and 
his admonition to the public, and let's take those words at face value.
  This is what the President said in an op-ed in The Wall Street 
Journal. He said that overregulation ``stifles innovation'' and has a 
``chilling effect on growth and jobs.'' Absolutely, that is true. That 
statement is true.
  President Obama said in his State of the Union address that same week 
that the op-ed was published in The Wall Street Journal, January 2011, 
``To reduce barriers to growth and investment . . . when we find rules 
that put an unnecessary burden on business, we will fix them.''
  Okay. Great news. We have got the remedy. We have got the way to fix 
that.
  I will tell you, I represent a constituency, Mr. Speaker, in suburban 
Chicago, as you know, and so, with frequency, I am out talking to 
businesses, getting in there. I represent a lot of manufacturers. I 
represent a lot of financial services companies. I represent a lot of 
food production, transportation, insurance, and other things.
  When you talk to folks and ask them what the nature of the challenge 
is, they will tell you. But what is interesting is the consistency of 
the feeling of pressure that they feel as it relates to a regulatory 
burden.
  So the good news is we can do something about that, and the good news 
is we can vote ``aye'' on the rule and we can vote ``aye'' on H.R. 427, 
the REINS Act.

  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), a very good 
friend of mine and the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule on H.R. 
427, and I thank my friend for yielding.
  This bill is the very definition of political legislation and serves 
absolutely no purpose in ensuring better rules. This legislation 
accomplishes nothing, aside from slowing down the administrative 
rulemaking process and giving Congress the power to shoot down any 
action that this majority doesn't like.
  By requiring a joint resolution of congressional approval prior to 
enactment, the only surefire achievement of this legislation is a 
longer rulemaking process, not a better one.
  Let me humor my Republican colleagues and try to give them the 
benefit of the doubt. They claim that this bill is about requiring 
Federal agencies to be more transparent in their actions. They want 
reports on how rules impact the Federal budget. But why should 
transparency only be limited to the budget? If transparency is the gold 
standard, why aren't we demanding reports on how these rules impact our 
most vulnerable and at-risk citizens? If we are striving for 
transparency, let's be transparent about all things.

[[Page H8542]]

  Yesterday, I submitted an amendment to address this point. But 
unsurprisingly, this rule does not allow my amendment to be considered. 
This proves yet again that this Republican majority cares more about 
protecting industry than protecting our people or our planet.
  My amendment was simple. It would have required the administration to 
report to Congress on the greenhouse gas emission impacts associated 
with any proposed rule and what any proposed rule's impacts are on low-
income communities in this country.
  The overwhelming scientific consensus is that climate change is real. 
No matter how often industry and many of my Republican colleagues try 
convince us that we have nothing to worry about, no matter how much 
manufactured science they gin up to create doubt, climate change is 
real.
  If the administration is going to be forced to justify their 
rulemaking to Congress, let's make sure they include climate impacts in 
their justifications. The same goes for how the rules impact our poor 
communities. Why are people less important than Big Business?
  My amendment aimed to remedy the negative impacts felt by these 
populations by changing the definition of what constitutes a major rule 
to include any rule that increases the health risks among low-income 
communities, period. But apparently those concerns don't warrant a vote 
on the House floor.
  The majority's decision to block my amendment on climate change and 
environmental justice says more about the underlying legislation than 
any speech you will hear today.
  This is not about good government. This is about House Republicans 
wanting to put their finger on the scale to benefit corporations at the 
expense of the health and safety of the American people and, yes, our 
planet.
  This is a bad rule and it is protecting a bad bill, and both should 
be defeated.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3064, a comprehensive, 6-year 
surface transportation bill that is partially paid for by restricting 
U.S. companies from using so-called inversion to shrink their tax 
obligations.
  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 (Mr. Denham). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I won't belabor things by talking about 
that, but I have to say the previous question makes an awful lot of 
sense for us to do a 6-year plan. People in our States and in our 
localities are looking to us to give them some certainty. I hear this 
all the time from colleagues on both sides of the aisle. For us not to 
do that, to me, is extremely troubling; and, I believe, in the long 
haul, it is harmful to the economy of this country.
  We need to pass a long-term surface transportation bill, and I 
genuinely believe most Members in the House of Representatives, 
Republican and Democrat, feel the same way.
  The name of this bill at least flirts with being clever, I will give 
the majority that. But let me tell you that we really need to rein in 
around here. We need to rein in a Republican-led Congress that will no 
longer bring the remaining appropriations bills to the floor because it 
is more dedicated to seeing the Confederate flag fly high. I really 
don't understand that.
  What happened here a few days ago, we had the Interior measure going 
forward. Someone complained, rightly, about the Confederate flag in 
public places.

                              {time}  1315

  All of a sudden, the Interior Appropriations and any other 
appropriations went away. I predict that we will probably wind up with 
a continuing resolution, rather than doing the work that the American 
people sent us here to do, and that is to complete the appropriations 
or remaining bills.
  We need to be about the business of reining in a Republican-led 
Congress that says it wants to help small businesses and then makes 
sure to let the Export-Import Bank charter expire.
  In the congressional district that I am privileged to serve, alone, 
$964,000 in lost business and lost jobs will occur with three companies 
that depend on the Export-Import Bank.
  We need to rein in a Republican Congress that constantly attempts to 
undermine a healthcare law. I have forgotten now; most of us can't even 
remember how many times we have voted to repeal portions of or all of 
the Affordable Care provision which is in effect now--5 years--and we 
are still having these sideline votes that are going nowhere.
  We undermine it, and it has provided millions of American citizens 
the opportunity to access affordable health care--and somebody please 
tell me what is wrong with that.
  We are 50 years now into Medicare, and I remember, as if it were 
yesterday, that then President Ronald Reagan said that it would have a 
severe impact on the American economy--in other words, to paraphrase, 
that the sky was going to fall.
  Well, 50 years out now with Medicare, we have seen the benefits to 
literally hundreds of millions of Americans who rely upon Medicare, and 
we demonstrably have seen its positive.
  Yes, we are learning, even with the Affordable Care Act, that what is 
happening is Medicare is now having diminution of its costs, which is 
necessary to rein in the cost of health care in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to defeat the 
previous question. Vote ``no'' on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it has been said--and we have 
moved beyond the old adage many times--if it moves, regulate it; or, if 
it exists, to regulate it.
  It is an interesting paradigm today because it is time for Washington 
to focus on creating a regulatory system that is flexible, allowing the 
market to decide the optimal path to implementation.
  Regulations should be expedient and unambiguous, seeking to minimize 
the uncertainty facing industries and small businesses, and we must 
encourage innovation and bringing new products and processes not only 
to market, but to office places everywhere. Outdated regulations should 
be cleared off of the books, especially those created by those 
unelected.
  As we have been here today--and I have, listening to the arguments--
what is amazingly--from our side, I have wanted to talk about 
regulation and the overreach of many of our branches; the gentleman 
from Illinois brought it up tremendously, and I have talked about this 
in the Ninth District of Georgia, where I am from--is that, for many 
years, I believe Congress decided, for whatever reason, it was much 
easier to give to agencies to promulgate rules and regulations. They 
said it is much easier.
  In fact, I have even heard from the floor today that we don't have 
the expertise, and it is much better to do it offsite. I just tend to 
find that is wrong.
  I think it is that Congress has the ability to listen to those 
experts, to listen to those opinions, and then provide something that 
unelected bureaucrats do not, and that is have the people who elect us, 
whom we face every time we go home--when I go to the grocery store, 
when I go to the ball games, when I go to my church, when I go to the 
places that I go to and they ask me questions, then they are holding 
their elected official accountable--then we take that, and we balance 
that to make good decisions for all, in our districts and in our 
country.
  What is amazing to me today is many of the arguments made today have 
nothing to do--there are many things we could debate here today, but we 
are here to debate--by the way, I will just remind everybody--the rule 
for the REINS Act, not the plethora of other things that would be want 
to, could have done, should have done--we are here on the issue of 
regulatory reform. We are here on the REINS Act.
  Frankly, if I was part of this administration who wants to create 
this sort of entrenched Federal bureaucracy, I wouldn't want to talk 
about regulatory reform either. I would want to talk about anything 
else. I would want to

[[Page H8543]]

talk about anything else besides the burden that keeps crushing down 
from Washington on small-business owners.
  Then, of course, as well, there is the argument that did come up, 
that if you really, really, really want this, undoubtedly, you are 
really, really, really just wanting to protect big businesses and make 
dirty--from our perspective, I have heard it before, decrease 
regulations so that people are put in harm's way or that the 
environment is worse off.
  The reality is that is an old argument and really just needs to go 
away. I come from the Ninth District of Georgia, in my humble opinion, 
one of the prettiest places in all the world. Our farmers, our 
residents all enjoy the clean air. They enjoy the greatness of what we 
have and the businesses that are a part there and the regulations that, 
when rightly controlled, help us achieve that American Dream.
  There is no one who, voting for this, or even talking against it, 
would want to actually say: I am voting for this because I want to 
actually pick up a glass of water that is tainted and drink it, or I 
want to make it worse for somebody else.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a simple rule. It says let's bring forward some 
fiscal sanity and regulatory sanity. Let's put it back in perspective.
  I believe the circle of government, when the Founders put it out 
there, was based on the fact of having the Executive to carry out the 
laws, the Congress to make those laws, and the judicial branch to 
interpret those laws. Our country works best when that is in alignment.
  What we are asking for is let's bring it back into alignment. Let's 
take the REINS Act, let's take this step toward bringing some certainty 
for our businesses because, at the end of the day, when our businesses 
have certainty, it does affect the people.
  It is not a nameless, faceless place on a brick wall somewhere, those 
business names that we want to talk about business. It is about those 
people who get in their cars in their neighborhoods and their 
apartments and their townhomes, and they drive to a place of work, or 
they walk to their place of work, and they make a paycheck; they earn a 
living so that they can do the things that I believe that they have 
wanted to prosper in and to take care of their families and to move 
that American Dream forward in their life.
  It is up to this building to look after them. It is up to what the 
Republican majority is putting forward to say: We care about all 
Americans; we care about their ability to earn a living; we care about 
their growth, and we care about their safety.
  Proper regulation done in the proper way is the way to do that. I 
will always stand on that side.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

    An Amendment to H. Res. 380 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida 

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 9. 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. 
     3064) to authorize highway infrastructure and safety, 
     transit, motor carrier, rail, and other surface 
     transportation programs, 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 among and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure and the chair and ranking minority member 
     of the Committee on Ways and Means. 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. 10. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3064.
                                  ____


        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. COLLINS of Georgia. 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 on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS. 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 adopting House Resolution 380, if 
ordered; and suspending the rules and passing H.R. 675.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240, 
nays 167, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 470]

                               YEAS--240

     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)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     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
     Donovan
     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

[[Page H8544]]


     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     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, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     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 (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--167

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     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)
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rice (NY)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Bass
     Butterfield
     Carter (TX)
     Clawson (FL)
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Fudge
     Graves (GA)
     Green, Al
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kelly (IL)
     Lee
     Lieu, Ted
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Moore
     Rangel
     Ribble
     Richmond
     Royce
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sewell (AL)
     Thompson (MS)
     Wasserman Schultz

                              {time}  1353

  Messrs. AGUILAR, FATTAH, and WELCH changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART and Mrs. BLACK changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


 Moment of Silence in Remembrance of Members of Armed Forces and Their 
                                Families

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would ask all present to rise for 
the purpose of a moment of silence.
  The Chair asks that the House now observe a moment of silence in 
remembrance of our brave men and women in uniform who have given their 
lives in the service of our Nation in Iraq and Afghanistan and their 
families, and of all who serve in our Armed Forces and their families.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will 
continue.
  There was no objection.
  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 is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 240, 
noes 167, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 471]

                               AYES--240

     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)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     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
     Donovan
     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 (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     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, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     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 (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zinke

                               NOES--167

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     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)
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind

[[Page H8545]]


     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rice (NY)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Bass
     Butterfield
     Carter (TX)
     Clawson (FL)
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Fudge
     Graves (GA)
     Green, Al
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kelly (IL)
     Lee
     Lieu, Ted
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Moore
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Royce
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sewell (AL)
     Thompson (MS)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Zeldin

                              {time}  1403

  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.

                          ____________________