[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 3 (Thursday, January 5, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H113-H124]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 26, REGULATIONS FROM THE EXECUTIVE
IN NEED OF SCRUTINY ACT OF 2017, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.
RES. 11, OBJECTING TO UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2334
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 22 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 22
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. 26) 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 Majority Leader and the
Minority Leader or their respective designees. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. No
amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed
in 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. 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. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the resolution (H. Res. 11) objecting to United
Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 as an obstacle to
Israeli-Palestinian peace, and for other purposes. The
resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble
to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division
of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
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 Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern), 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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous materials on House Resolution 22, 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 forward
this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for
consideration of H. Res. 11, a resolution regarding United Nations
Security Council Resolution 2334. It provides for 1 hour of debate on
H. Res. 11, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of
the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Additionally, this rule provides for consideration of legislation
that I introduced, H.R. 26, the Regulations from the Executive in Need
of Scrutiny, or REINS, Act. It makes in order 12 amendments from
Members on both sides of the aisle, and provides for 1 hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority
leader.
Yesterday, the Rules Committee received testimony from the Judiciary
and Foreign Affairs Committees.
Mr. Speaker, the beginning of this new Congress is a time of hope and
a time to establish clear priorities and goals. This is a time to show
the American people that we, as their elected representatives, will
have the courage to stand on principles that made us worthy of their
trust. This rule provides for two pieces of legislation that represent
our commitment to the integrity and transparency of this institution.
H. Res. 11, introduced by Chairman Royce and cosponsored by Ranking
Member Engel, objects to United Nations Security Council Resolution
2334 as an obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace. It calls for the
resolution's repeal and makes clear that the current administration's
failure to veto the U.N. resolution violated longstanding U.S. policy
to protect Israel from such counterproductive U.N. resolutions.
Importantly, it also provides a foundation for the next administration
to take action to counteract the damaging effects of the U.N. Security
Council resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I support H. Res. 11, yet it shouldn't be necessary.
President Obama's refusal to veto the U.N. Security Council's
resolution was a radical and dangerous departure from U.S. precedent.
Prior to this most recent Security Council resolution, President
Obama has exercised the veto power of the United States on every
resolution relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His failure to
do so this time jeopardizes and undermines our relationship with our
strongest ally in the Middle East, and it has the potential to undercut
the peace process.
I stood in this Chamber numerous times before and demanded support
for Israel, and I am going to do so here again today. I refuse to sit
idly by and watch misguided anti-Israel policies take root.
We have to take a stand. The administration's failure to act, to even
participate in the vote, was an act of cowardice. It can't be erased,
and we must take steps to address it. This resolution is a step in the
right direction.
As a new President is sworn in this month, I am hopeful that we, as
the House of Representatives, and the United States will reaffirm our
support
[[Page H114]]
of Israel and return to policies that strengthen the relationships
between our two nations.
Mr. Speaker, as the new Congress starts, we also must look at
domestic policies and how to grow our economy. We are going to do that
right here in the House by taking the lead on regulatory reform to help
lift the burden of an intrusive government by jump-starting the
economy.
{time} 1245
As part of this effort, I introduced H.R. 26, the REINS Act. This
bill was originally authored and introduced by former Congressman Geoff
Davis in 2009. Last Congress, now-Senator Todd Young introduced the
bill in the House. This Congress, I am proud to carry the torch for
this commonsense legislation. I also thank Chairman Goodlatte and his
staff for all of their hard work on this bill.
Article I, section 1 of the United States Constitution grants
legislative powers to Congress--we read about that right here on the
floor this morning--but, for too long, Congress has ceded that power to
the executive branch, which has resulted in an onslaught of regulation.
This is a problem that we have seen under the administrations of both
parties, and Members on both sides of the aisle should be concerned.
In recent years, this problem has exploded. In 2015 alone, the
executive branch issued over 3,000 rules and regulations, and 76 of
these regulations were major regulations. Let me explain that.
Unelected bureaucrats, without input from the American people or their
Representatives in Congress, issued 76 major regulations that would
impact our economy by more than $100 million each in 1 year alone. The
consequences of these rules are massive. Even worse, we have seen this
administration promote regulations with burdens that far outweigh their
benefits. The REINS Act would require Federal agencies to submit major
rules to Congress for approval. Under this bill, major rules would have
to be accepted by both Chambers and signed by the President to become
effective.
This bill restores accountability to the legislative process and
ensures that lawmakers, not nameless bureaucrats, are the ones making
the laws, just like our Constitution outlines. We have seen the harm
that can come from an out-of-control regulatory regime. Right now,
hardworking Americans across the country are paying the price. In fact,
on average, each U.S. household is bearing an annual economic weight of
$15,000 in regulatory burdens. The oppressive costs of regulation,
coupled with the impact on jobs, demand action.
One regulation, put forth by the Environmental Protection Agency in
2015, would have cost my home State of Georgia over 11,000 jobs; and we
are all familiar with the waters of the United States rule, which,
essentially, asserted authority over all groundwater in the country. If
you have been to northeast Georgia, you know that water collects in
pools and puddles and streams at certain times of the year. If all of
that were to be regulated under this rule, it would be a disaster for
not only my district but for all of the country, but that is what this
administration has tried to do. That rule has been halted by a court,
but were it to go into effect, it would cut farmers, ranchers,
Realtors, and small businesses off at the knees.
With the number of major rules this administration has propagated, I
could far exceed my time in just illustrating the problems these
regulations can create; but, with the REINS Act, we have a chance to
carve out a better way in going forward. The American people elected
us, in this body, to represent them. The REINS Act allows their voices
to be heard more clearly.
Again, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't matter what party is in the executive
branch because the legislative branch is the one that makes and accepts
the bills, not the unelected bureaucrats. This bill creates a sensible
way to move forward with legislative business while better protecting
our economy from suffocating regulations that Americans never voted to
enact.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for
yielding the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, before I speak on today's legislation, I want to take a
moment to express my continued deep concern and uneasiness about the
Russian hacking in order to influence the outcome of the 2016
Presidential election and the deeply troublesome response from our
President-elect.
American democracy was attacked, in 2016, by Russian hackers who
sought to tip our Presidential election in favor of Donald Trump. That
is not I who is speaking--that is the CIA, the FBI, and 14 other United
States intelligence agencies that have reached a clear consensus on
this matter. Yet, even in the face of the overwhelming evidence,
President-elect Trump has continued to sow seeds of confusion by
publicly attacking and trying to discredit our country's intelligence
agencies and the brave men and women who risk their lives every day to
keep us safe.
Today, intelligence officials are testifying before the Senate on
this matter. In one of his most alarming actions yet, President-elect
Trump has said that he would rather trust the words of WikiLeaks
founder Julian Assange--an accused sex offender, who is holed up in the
Ecuadorian Embassy in the U.K.--than the consensus of the Directors of
the U.S. intelligence agencies. When Speaker Ryan was asked about
Julian Assange, he called him a sycophant for Russia who leaks, steals
data, and compromises national security. Yet, America's next President
puts more faith in him than in the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies that
he will soon oversee.
This is not normal behavior by a President-elect, let alone by a
President, and we cannot allow it to become normal. I appeal to my
fellow Members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats--and
especially the Republican leadership--to reach out to the President-
elect and ensure that there is a clear understanding about how damaging
these statements and actions are to America's credibility, to our
national security, and to the morale and responsibilities of our
intelligence agencies. I appeal to my colleagues to get him help now.
America faces serious threats across the globe, and we cannot afford
to have a Commander in Chief at war with the very intelligence agencies
that are responsible for keeping our country safe. Whatever his
motivation, President-elect Trump must clearly and unequivocally join
Republicans and Democrats who seek answers. We need a bipartisan,
independent commission to uncover the truth about Russian hacking, and
we need all of our leaders to support it.
It is time Mr. Trump's Twitter sideshow comes to an end. It only
confirms what many of us feared during the campaign--that he is
temperamentally unfit to be President. We must be united in protecting
the integrity of our elections against Russians and all foreign
influence.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me get to the underlying bills.
I rise in strong opposition to this rule, which provides for the
consideration of H.R. 26, the REINS Act, under a structured process,
and for H. Res. 11, a resolution objecting to a recent United Nations
Security Council resolution on Israel, under a completely closed
process.
Before I get into discussing the merits of the bill, Mr. Speaker, I
would like to first express some serious concern with the process used
to rush this legislation to the floor. The deadline for amendments to
be submitted to the Rules Committee was 10 a.m. on Tuesday. That is 2
hours before Members were sworn in and before the 115th Congress
officially began. Now, it is true that some of the amendments that were
received after the deadline were made in order for consideration on the
floor. But, really, is this the way we want to begin the consideration
of legislation in this session of Congress? All Members should have had
the opportunity to review the legislation and offer thoughtful
amendments to the REINS Act. Wouldn't it have been something to have
considered this bill under an open process? If you hadn't wanted to
have done that, maybe you could have waited a couple of days before you
brought it to the floor so that everybody, especially the freshmen,
[[Page H115]]
would have had an opportunity to evaluate it, and maybe they would have
had some good ideas that they would have wanted to offer. But, here we
are, right out of the gate, limiting the process and prohibiting
Members from offering their ideas on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, we have a process for reviewing rules promulgated by the
executive branch. Congress should--and, indeed, can--examine
regulations. Not all regulations are perfect. There are such things as
bad regulations, and we should get rid of the ones that don't work.
There is no debate on that. We have the ability to override regulations
with new laws, and we have reauthorizations, appropriations, spending
limitations, oversight hearings, investigations, GAO audits and
studies, and the Congressional Review Act, just to name a few. We have
a process that can and should work, but, because my Republican friends
don't always get what they want, they want to undermine that process.
I don't think my Republican colleagues are really interested in a
thoughtful review of these regulations. In fact, I find it hard to
believe that this Republican Congress even has the capacity to utilize
the process that is outlined in this bill so as to consider the 100 or
so regulations--some of which are highly technical and would require
experts in specialized fields to analyze--that could come up in any
given year; but I guess that is the point. This bill would make it
nearly impossible to implement much-needed regulations that ensure
consumer health and product safety, environmental protections,
workplace safety, and financial protections, just to name a few.
It would be a dream come true for industry and the wealthy, well-
connected Republican donor class who, for example, are interested in
blocking all attempts to rein in Wall Street, to combat climate change,
or to protect workers and their public health. One simply needs to look
at the intensive lobbying that has gone into fighting these regulations
and supporting antiregulation legislation like the REINS Act--groups
like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Koch brothers, the American
Petroleum Institute, just to name a few.
Industry groups already use their seemingly unlimited resources to
delay and prevent commonsense regulations from taking effect by tying
rules up in court. This bill is just one additional tool for the
wealthy and powerful to delay and destroy commonsense consumer
protections.
In short, this bill is not about creating jobs, so nobody should be
fooled. It is about rewarding special interests, plain and simple. It
is about making it more difficult to rein in Wall Street, to control
polluters, or to protect workers. But this is in keeping with the
philosophy of the Republican majority, so no one should be surprised. I
urge my colleagues to strongly oppose this effort.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me just say a few words about the closed
rule on H. Res. 11, the resolution condemning U.S. abstention on Israel
at the U.N. Security Council.
The peace and security of the State of Israel are priorities for
every Member of Congress. Let us not try to obscure or confuse that
truth. I can't think of any Member of this House who doesn't support
peace in the Middle East and a safe and secure Israel. We may disagree
about how to achieve those goals. Most of us believe that a two-state
solution that provides peace, security, and prosperity to all of the
peoples of the region--Israeli, Palestinian, and their Arab neighbors--
is the best option to securing a just, lasting, and durable peace.
I have always voted in support of economic and military aid for
Israel, but this does not mean that I always agree with the policies of
a particular government in Tel Aviv. Sometimes I have been critical of
the Israeli Government just as I am often critical of my own government
and of other governments in the region.
For the past four decades or more, the United States, under
Republican and Democratic Presidents alike, has strongly opposed the
expansion of settlements and the demolition of Palestinian homes. This
has been a bipartisan consensus. We oppose the settlements as a
violation of basic human rights; we oppose them as creating obstacles
to a lasting two-state solution; and we oppose their rapid expansion as
potentially creating a reality on the ground that, therefore, closes
any possibility of a two-state solution.
Since 1967, under Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan,
George H. W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama, the United
States has voted in favor or has abstained on more than 50 U.N.
Security Council resolutions that are critical of Israel, including
resolutions on settlements or the demolition of Palestinian homes. Of
the more than 30 abstentions that have been cast by the U.S. over
nearly five decades, only one was cast by the Obama administration--
just one.
H. Res. 11 does not precisely express that fact accurately. It
implies that the U.S. always opposes or vetoes such regulations when
that is hardly the case, nor does U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334
impose a solution on Israel outside of direct bilateral negotiations to
end the conflict. Some of us who are strong supporters of Israel have
difficulties with some of the wording in H. Res. 11 on a
straightforward factual basis.
Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment to allow
this House to debate a substitute offered by our colleagues,
Congressman David Price, Congressman Eliot Engel, who is a cosponsor of
H. Res. 11, and Congressman Gerry Connolly. The Price-Engel-Connolly
amendment expresses the House's strong support for Israel, a two-state
solution, and direct negotiations between the parties to the conflict.
It is reasonable and balanced and is very much deserving of debate and
this House's attention.
Regrettably, the Republican majority on the House Rules Committee
rejected allowing that amendment to be brought before the House and
debated. Instead, it decided to begin this new year and this new
Congress with yet another closed rule--in fact, the second closed rule
this week with no debate, with no thoughtful alternatives, and with no
ability of the Members of this body to deliberate such serious issues
and choose between alternative proposals--just politics, politics,
politics, politics as usual.
I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and to please send a clear
message to House leaders that we would like to be able to debate
reasonable alternatives and amendments to bills, like the Price-Engel-
Connolly amendment. If we don't start out the year demanding fairness
and openness in our debates of important issues then I don't want to
even speculate as to what the rest of the year will look like.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate my colleague's
concerns. I think it is interesting to note, though, that, if he were
concerned about a closed rule, there were many of us who were very
concerned about a closed voice from America at the U.N. Security
Council in not defending Israel.
Also, on the other subject here, when we look at this going forward,
there was a substitute that was actually offered in support of a
resolution that does take a stand against what happened. It was not
even mentioned in the substitute resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Byrne), a fellow member of the Rules Committee.
{time} 1300
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to share my strong support for this
rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, there is no greater friend to the United States than
Israel. Israel is a beacon of hope in a very dangerous part of the
world. They are an important economic and military partner of the
United States, and they play a critical role when it comes to fighting
radical Islamic terrorism.
Given the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship, I was deeply
disappointed to see the United States recently passed a flawed anti-
Israel resolution that will only make it more difficult to achieve
peace in the Middle East. Even more disappointing was the fact that the
United States just stood by and did nothing as it happened. Instead of
vetoing the resolution, the United States Ambassador abstained from
voting at all.
In other words, the United States turned its back and looked the
other way as the U.N. passed a flawed resolution attacking Israel. This
represents a
[[Page H116]]
dangerous break in a longstanding and bipartisan policy to protect our
sole democratic ally in the region from one-sided resolutions at the
U.N.
Let's be clear, this resolution does absolutely nothing to make peace
more likely in the region. Instead, it muddies the water and only
further complicates what is already a very complex issue.
No solution to the ongoing problems with Israel and the Palestinian
Authority is going to come from an international body like the United
Nations telling them what to do. Any real solution must come through
negotiations between the involved parties.
Honestly, given the many blunders of the Obama administration on the
world stage, I guess this most recent action shouldn't be all that
surprising. But this action is one of the most irresponsible acts ever
by an outgoing President. It will be a dark stain on an already
disastrous legacy.
By abstaining and allowing this resolution to pass, the Obama
administration has upset decades of bipartisan policy as it relates to
Israel and put a pathway to peace even further out of reach. Now is the
time to be standing up for Israel, not turning away from them.
It is my hope and my belief that under President-elect Trump the
United States will once again stand arm in arm with Israel, and this
resolution is an important step in that direction.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the
underlying legislation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I hope that my colleague from Alabama uses some of that passion to
convince the President-elect to stop cozying up to Vladimir Putin, who
is no friend of democracy, no friend of Israel, and no friend of human
rights.
All we are trying to do here, Mr. Speaker, is to have a little
democracy on the House floor. People can vote whichever way they want
to vote. But the Rules Committee last night, staying true to form,
actually denied us the ability to bring to the floor and debate an
alternative, which we think is, quite frankly, more appropriate.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question.
If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order
H. Res. 23, the David Price-Eliot Engel-Gerry Connolly resolution, to
provide an alternative viewpoint.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution again was blocked by the Rules
Committee, right along party line. Republicans said ``no'' to an open
debate, even though it complies with all the rules of the House.
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 Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss the proposal, I yield 3\1/2\
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition
to this closed rule and the underlying resolution.
Mr. Speaker, there is a legitimate debate to be had concerning U.N.
Security Council Resolution 2334 and the United States' decision to
abstain, but H. Res. 11 does not engage on those issues. Instead, it
misrepresents the motives of the Obama administration as it made the
tough decision to abstain, and it distorts the content of the U.N.
Security Council resolution, apparently for political purposes. In
fact, H. Res. 11 runs a real risk of undermining the credibility of the
United States Congress as a proactive force working toward a two-state
solution.
As we enter a period of great geopolitical uncertainty, that
principle has never been more important. In the face of new threats to
democracy and stability, we must join together to reaffirm the most
fundamental tenets of our foreign policy, including our strong and
unwavering support for Israel. But we must also demonstrate to the
world that we are still committed to diplomacy that defends human
rights and promotes peace.
In an effort to make that unifying affirmation, I, Mr. Engel, and Mr.
Connolly offered an amendment in the Rules Committee yesterday in the
nature of a substitute for H. Res. 11. Our substitute was intended to
put forward clear, consensus language that omitted the flaws of the
underlying legislation and reaffirmed America's longstanding commitment
to Israel and to peace in the region.
Our alternative didn't attempt to solve all the region's problems. We
didn't pass judgment on recent events at the United Nations. In fact,
those of us working on this resolution have varying views on that
question. Nor did our resolution include politically charged attacks on
the foreign policy priorities of the other party.
Instead, our resolution is carefully designed to allow a broad,
bipartisan consensus to speak in one voice in support of a two-state
solution as the most credible pathway to peace.
Unfortunately, this substitute amendment was not made in order by the
Rules Committee, which instead moved forward with the closed rule we
have before us. The alternative resolution has now been introduced
separately as H. Res. 23, and it is available for cosponsorship.
Today, however, we don't have that before us because of this rule.
Members don't have the opportunity to vote on this or any other
resolution that accurately affirms both our vital relationship with
Israel and the longstanding bipartisan consensus that supports a viable
two-state solution. Instead, we are presented with an extreme
resolution that badly distorts the history--and we have heard that
again here this morning--and that recklessly maligns U.S. diplomacy,
all to embarrass the Obama administration for political gain. It is not
worthy of this body.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question, ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the underlying resolution.-
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the distinguished chairman of the
Rules Committee.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Collins), a bright young member of the Rules Committee who today is
offering the rule on two very important issues that face this great
Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I rise in support of the
work that the Rules Committee did for the right reason and I will yield
the right results.
The American people spoke on November 8, and they asked for change, a
change from business as usual. Mr. Speaker, that does mean you can look
at geopolitical facts and draw a conclusion as opposed to geopolitical
facts and ignore things that happen in the world, and that is exactly
what we are doing here today.
The American people no longer want unelected bureaucrats promulgating
rules. They no longer want Washington to be so important in their
lives. They want and need to be able to have an opportunity to make
their own decisions and to work well within the law. They have spoken;
and they want what I believe the Republican House, the Republican
Senate, and a Republican President will bring to the country. It is
called accountability.
The REINS Act, sponsored by Mr. Collins today, addresses many of the
issues that I just discussed. The legislation requires that a joint
resolution must be approved and must be passed by both Chambers of
Congress and signed by the President before any major new rule or
regulation is promulgated by the executive branch before it can take
place. These are rules written by the Congress, rules then associated
and determined by the executive, but with the intent of Congress to
make sure that the American people are not further harmed.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have just heard an opportunity to discuss what
was--this discussion that we are having about Israel and the
administration. The bottom line is that the chairman of the Foreign
Affairs Committee, Representative Ed Royce, came before the committee
yesterday and said he really did not take issue with what they were
doing. He would not support it because it did not address the problem
that occurred when the Obama administration, for political purposes,
hung the people of Israel and the State of Israel out for the world to
condemn and take
[[Page H117]]
advantage of. It bypassed years and years of American foreign policy.
It stunned not only Members of Congress, but it also stunned people who
recognize that Israel is in a fight for their life.
Mr. Speaker, we did not, based upon the determination of the Rules
Committee, make in order the bill that they had asked for. They can
bring it to the floor today, and we are not going to make it available
because it does not even discuss the basic facts. That is, the
President of the United States unilaterally allowed the State of
Israel, who is a dear friend of the United States, to be hung out in
the political and the economic world and the world of foreign affairs
to be tarnished and taken advantage of.
Mr. Speaker, we are here to say that we were appalled by what our
government did and we are going to stand up and call it for what it is.
America should always be a trusted friend to Israel, and we are doing
exactly that here today.
Mr. Speaker, I predict an overwhelming vote that will take place
today to enunciate what we believe is correct and also what was wrong.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee said that the
American people don't want business as usual. Yet, here we are on this
opening week and what we see is business as usual, more Putin-like,
closed rules coming to the floor. The 113th and the 114th Congresses
were the two most closed Congresses in the history of the United
States. Here we are beginning the new session with, again, this closed
process.
The Speaker, on opening day, made a promise to uphold the rights of
the minority.
Well, you know what?
That means that the minority ought to be able to be heard on the
House floor, that we ought to be able to bring amendments and
substitutes to the floor. Yet, we get rejected time and time again.
This is not the way the most deliberative body in the world should be
run. This is not the way Congress should be run. By closing down this
process the way the majority does, it does a great disservice to the
American people
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island
(Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to this rule, which
was pushed through the Rules Committee as a closed rule and did not
make in order an amendment, which I support, offered by my colleagues,
Mr. Price, Mr. Connolly, and Mr. Engel.
Their amendment, like H. Res. 11, objects to the U.N. Security
Council Resolution 2334, which I believe was an unfair and one-sided
resolution that placed undue blame upon the State of Israel for the
impasse on peace negotiations.
Like the Obama administration, I am frustrated by the lack of
progress in recent years toward achieving a two-state solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian crisis. However, I do not believe that the
resolution passed by the Security Council contributes in any way to
positively moving this process along.
Let's not mistake the fact that the Palestinian Government, which
currently includes the terrorist faction Hamas, has done little to
support peace negotiations. By refusing to publicly recognize Israel's
right to exist as a Jewish state, condoning terrorist activity and
pursuing unilateral actions at international institutions in violation
of the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians have continuously placed
roadblocks to achieving peace.
Let me be clear, the ongoing settlement activity sanctioned by the
Israeli Government is also counterproductive to the peace process. If
the Israeli Government wants to remain a beacon of freedom and
democracy in the Middle East, they must recommit themselves to
achieving a peaceful two-state solution where a Jewish Israel exists
peacefully with the Palestinian state.
With the events of recent years, I am extremely fearful that the two-
state solution is, if not dead, in critical condition. There are those
within both the Israeli and Palestinian Governments who are actively
working to ensure its demise. I think, as Members of Congress who
strongly support Israel, we should be doing everything we can to convey
to both the Israelis and the Palestinians that we will not stand by and
watch them torpedo the hope of a peaceful solution to this crisis.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule
governing these pieces of legislation and, in particular, the
underlying legislation, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of
Scrutiny, or REINS Act, H.R. 26.
Mr. Speaker, during the first two terms that I have served in this
Congress, the most common question posed to me by my constituents in
central and eastern Kentucky is: What is the biggest surprise that you
have confronted as a Member of Congress?
Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, the biggest surprise that I have discovered
as a Member of Congress is that Congress is no longer in charge.
Regrettably, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in the executive
branch run the country.
{time} 1315
Most of the laws that are enacted in this country at the Federal
level come out of unelected bureaucrats in administrative agencies in
the executive branch. Members of Congress, even though we are elected
by the American people to be the lawmaking branch under Article I of
the Constitution, we can't stop it. We can't stop these rules and
regulations.
So I am proud to have consistently supported the REINS Act because it
reasserts the powers of this body and this Congress under Article I of
the Constitution, which provides: ``All legislative powers herein
granted shall be invested in a Congress of the United States, which
shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.''
What does this mean?
The most important word in Article I of the Constitution is that
first substantive word, ``all,'' implying that none of the legislative
powers should be in any other branch of the Federal Government, and it
certainly shouldn't be exercised by the executive branch. We know this
as the nondelegation doctrine, the principle that Congress may not and
should not delegate its administrative power to administrative
agencies.
The nondelegation doctrine forces a politically accountable Congress
to make policy choices rather than leave this to unelected
administrative officials. Yet what we have seen over the last several
decades, and especially over the last 8 years, has been the rise of an
unaccountable, out-of-control administrative state. Over time,
legislative powers that are vested exclusively in Congress by the
Constitution have been increasingly and unconstitutionally claimed,
assumed, and exercised by the executive branch.
Now unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats decide how you work, what
goods and services you can buy and sell, and what you can do with your
own property, all without accountability at the ballot box. So this
state of affairs is fundamentally in conflict with the foundational,
constitutional principle that Congress alone possesses the Federal
legislative power.
Look, this has enormous economic consequences. It is costly to our
economy, and I don't have to go into that. The estimates are $1.8
trillion in costs to the American economy. But the bigger issue is that
none of these rules from these agencies have been approved--let alone,
even considered--by Congress, even though they have a profound impact
on the economy. So the measure we are considering today would simply
require those regulations with the greatest economic impact to be
approved by both Houses of Congress prior to their implementation.
This has two positive outcomes. First, obviously, it has the effect
of blocking costly rules. Secondly, and more importantly, it will no
longer allow Members of Congress to delegate their constitutional
responsibility to the executive branch.
I will conclude, I heard my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts,
make the argument that Congress is not even interested in these
regulations and we are not capable of seriously reviewing these rules.
This is about making sure that experts with specialized expertise in
the executive branch review and promulgate these rules. But what are we
doing here if
[[Page H118]]
that is true? We should turn out the lights, lock the door and leave,
and give the keys of the government to the executive branch.
We had a Democratic administration over the last 8 years. We have a
Republican administration coming. This is not about Republicans and
Democrats. This is not a partisan issue. This is about the integrity of
the institution of Congress. Let's stand up for the Congress and pass
the REINS Act.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and
for his steadfast commitment to ensuring global peace and security.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and H. Res. 11, which
is a flawed and misguided effort as currently written. Let me be clear:
H. Res. 11 would undermine longstanding and bipartisan U.S. policy on a
two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This resolution
is deeply flawed because it does not accurately portray U.S. policy on
Israeli settlements. What is worse, this resolution completely
mischaracterizes the United Nations Security Council resolution and the
United States' abstention vote.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee shamefully rejected an
alternative introduced by Congressman Price, Congressman Connolly, and
Congressman Engel, which reflects current U.S. policy that would have
reaffirmed our commitment to a negotiated and peaceful two-state
solution. This is the only pathway to peace and security. It is
appalling--but really, it is not surprising--that Republicans pushed
through a closed rule and hurried this to the floor.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, the lack of a debate is a disgrace. But you
know what? There are some of us here who are not going to be gagged.
There are some of here who are going to speak our mind, and there are
some of us here who are going to put forth our views. That is our
constitutional responsibility. We have the right to debate, whether you
agree or disagree. It is really, really a very sad day for our
democracy when bills like this come to the floor with rules like this
which don't allow debate. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that the
gentlewoman just got a chance to debate herself on the floor and to use
that freedom of speech. That is what this floor is for.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Ross).
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding.
I rise today to support this rule and to express my strong
disapproval of President Obama and his administration's refusal to veto
the anti-Israel resolution adopted by the United Nations Security
Council on December 23, 2016.
Since its establishment, Israel has worked tirelessly to forge peace
with its neighbors. They have sought neither violence nor conflict. In
fact, the territories discussed in the misguided U.N. resolution were
areas Israel gained in self-defense during the 1967 Six-Day War. These
areas include the Old City, with the Temple Mount and Western Wall,
areas that, thousands of years ago, were the origin of the Israeli
culture, heritage, and religion.
Israel did not seek to take this land. Rather, when threatened by
their Arab neighbors in 1967, they were forced to act in self-defense
and repel these attacks. Since that time, Israel has successfully
reached peaceful agreements with many of the Arab countries who, at
that time, sought to wipe them off the map.
Israel is the only thriving democracy in the Middle East who
practices and protects human rights regardless of ethnicity, gender,
religion, or citizenship. Additionally, the State of Israel has been
committed to implementing initiatives to promote economic growth in the
region, including creating opportunities for Palestinians and others.
Israel is a shining example of taking care of those who are around
them, even as they face constant threat of violence and terrorist
attacks.
I have been appalled over what has taken place under the direction of
President Obama and Secretary Kerry and others within the
administration. In response, I also introduced a resolution condemning
these intolerable actions. By failing to direct the United States to
veto the one-sided, anti-Israel U.N. Security Council resolution, the
President turned his back on Israel and, as a result, turned his back
on America.
The anti-Israel resolution adopted by the U.N. Security Council
threatens peace and stability in the Middle East. It will most likely
incentivize further violence and radical boycotts.
While President Obama and Secretary Kerry's long list of foreign
policy failures has been well-documented over the years, none to date
have been this deliberate and calculated. That is why I have come to
the floor to support Chairman Royce's bipartisan resolution.
As Republicans and Democrats alike have expressed their contempt for
the President's lack of action, I look forward to working with my
colleagues and President-elect Trump in correcting President Obama's
anti-Israeli tactics as we work to form a stronger bond with Israel and
as we work to promote peace in the Middle East.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say to Mr. Ross, my friend, I agree with just
about every single thing you say about the great State of Israel, but I
disagree with you about this resolution. Let me explain why.
Israel is a Jewish democratic state. It has been our strong ally. We
have supported it through thick and thin, most recently with a $38
billion appropriation for their security over the next 10 years. I
supported that. But this question that we face fundamentally comes down
to whether we are going to support a two-state solution or move toward
a one-state solution.
The bottom line here is that settlement activity, every settlement
that is made--600,000 settlers living in the West Bank and Jerusalem--
makes it ever-more difficult to achieve that two-state solution.
President Obama, in his abstention on that veto, was acknowledging
what has been the policy of this country. Ronald Reagan was opposed to
settlements. You know, you get a family that settles anywhere, but in
the West Bank, they put down roots. They are good people. They have a
belief that the West Bank belongs Biblically to Israel. That is their
view. Many politicians, including Netanyahu, appear to be embracing
that. That is not the international position. It is not the unified
position in Israel. Many folks in Israel think the settlements are a
threat to the possibility of achieving the secure borders and the
security of Israel and the maintenance of it as a democratic Jewish
state.
Mr. Speaker, there is another issue. With 600,000 settlers, with 4.5
million Palestinians in the West Bank and also living in the State of
Israel and 6.5 million Jewish members of the State of Israel, the
demographics, long term, are going to reach a tipping point where there
could be more Arab voters than there are Jewish voters, and then the
State of Israel will have to make the decision Jewish or democratic. I
want the State of Israel to continue to be that Jewish and democratic
state that it is, and that is why I oppose this resolution.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).
Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, nothing unites Indiana's Sixth Congressional
District quite like the simple phrase, ``we must stand with Israel.''
Throughout most of my rural district that has far more Christian
churches than synagogues, Hoosiers are united in their support of the
Jewish state.
Hoosiers, myself included, were deeply distressed when the Obama
administration stood silent as our great ally was demonized by the U.N.
Israel is our most important friend in the region, and among America's
best partners in the world. President Obama's silence and defection
from Israel was unconscionable, and he has made our ally less safe and
peace less likely.
I am eager to vote today to send a strong signal to the world that
the
[[Page H119]]
American people reject the U.N.'s one-sided, shortsighted U.N. Security
Council resolution, and the American people stand united with Israel. I
urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Israel is a special place in a troubled
and storied landscape, sacred ground for three of the world's major
regions.
Israel's security is important to me and the people I represent. The
Jewish homeland is the only democracy in this broader region of
continuing conflict. I abhor the terrorist acts. Israel's security
merits our support, which is why the Obama administration, with
Congress' approval, just awarded an unprecedented amount of military
aid over the next 10 years.
But, unfortunately, Israel's future is being threatened by its own
actions as well as by its adversaries. For years, reckless settlement
expansion has been opposed by the United States and the rest of the
world. They are confiscating Palestinian land in a way that is not just
contrary to longstanding American policy, but is often illegal under
Israeli law.
It looks like the incoming Trump administration is reconsidering 50
years of bipartisan policy, urged on by the extremist views of his
proposed Ambassador whose position on settlement expansion is on the
fringe of even Israeli politics.
H. Res. 11 sends the wrong signal to the incoming President, to
Israeli politicians, and especially to the Israeli people. It drives a
wedge between Israel and the majority of Americans, including the
majority of Jewish Americans. It weakens that special relationship and
furthers the isolation of Israel, in evidence as the resolution was
approved unanimously by the other 14 countries. Israel will become more
vulnerable and, candidly, it will likely embolden forces that are
hostile to the Jewish state.
Instead of this resolution, we should reject the rule and support the
resolution I cosponsored with Mr. Price that reaffirms our commitment
to the longstanding American policy in support of a two-state solution
and to help secure Israel's future as a stable, democratic, peaceful
state.
{time} 1330
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I support the REINS Act and the rule that brings it to
us, but I want to underscore the point made earlier by Mr. Barr.
The REINS Act says that any regulation--that is, an act with the
force of law--adopted by the executive branch and costs more than $100
million must then be approved by Congress to take effect.
As necessary as this bill is in the current environment, I am afraid
it has got it completely backwards. Under the Constitution read on this
floor today, it is not the role of the executive branch to make law and
for the legislative branch then to approve or veto it. Quite the
contrary, making law is the singular prerogative of the legislative
branch; the executive then approves or vetoes that law.
The REINS Act is necessary solely because for years Congress has
improperly ceded its lawmaking powers to the executive, and it is time
we restored the proper role of the legislative branch to make law and
for the executive branch to faithfully execute it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mr. McGovern, for
his leadership and for managing this rule.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the closed rule for H.
Res. 11.
Ranking Member Engel, Mr. Price, and I have submitted an amendment to
H. Res. 11 when it came before the Rules Committee. Our amendment
offered a balanced approach and strongly reaffirmed longstanding,
bipartisan principles that undergird U.S. policy on the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict. We introduced that amendment as a reasonable
alternative that would allow all of us to convene the broadest possible
bipartisan coalition here in the House.
Personally, I believe the U.S. should have vetoed the U.N. Security
Council resolution, and, notably, our resolution supported the U.S.
veto of any one-sided or anti-Israel U.N. Security Council resolution
or any resolution that seeks to impose a resolution to the conflict.
Our resolution also condemned boycott and divestment campaigns and
sanctions that target Israel, and it reiterated support for a
negotiated settlement leading to a sustainable two-state solution that
reaffirms Israel's right to exist as a democratic, Jewish state. We all
agree that there can be no substitute for direct bilateral negotiations
between Israel and the Palestinians. As we transition into a new
administration and begin this new Congress, we should resist
temptations to rewrite U.S. policy on the peace process in a misguided
attempt to further drive a wedge where none should exist.
The point of H. Res. 11 seems to be to bash Obama on the way out, and
the fact that there are distortions on history and fact seem not to
bother us. On this point, I would note that H. Res. 11 mentions
settlements but makes no attempt to reaffirm longstanding U.S.
opposition to those very settlements. It is more important now than
ever that Congress maintain its consistent, bipartisan policy toward
the conflict. We believe the carefully constructed language in our
resolution did just that, but we were not allowed the opportunity by
the Rules Committee to bring it before the floor for a vote.
So I urge my colleagues, especially my Democratic colleagues, to vote
``no'' on H. Res. 11 and the rule and to support and cosponsor H. Res.
23, a much more bipartisan and balanced approach.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast), who is a great new Member.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Georgia for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today because the current administration has
literally undermined peace with their shameful failure to veto U.N.
Resolution 2334.
Condemning Israel is condemning the most peaceful country in the
Middle East, and it is done simply to appease Palestinians--a group
that has been historically defined by their responsibility for terror--
and this does not bring us one step closer to peace.
I can tell you that after defending freedom in the U.S., I chose to
volunteer alongside the Israeli Defense Forces because our countries do
share the uncommon ideals of freedom, democracy, and mutual respect for
all people. During my time with the IDF, I did learn at the tables of
Israeli families just how much each one of them truly desire peace.
By failing to veto this hateful U.N. resolution, the administration
has sent a terrible message. We must counter this underhanded
condemnation of Israel with a unanimous show of support today for H.
Res. 11.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this House contains many friends of Israel,
Republican and Democratic. Indeed, as long as I've been here, I have
never found an enemy of Israel in this House. Certainly that friendship
was very apparent when only a few weeks ago President Obama approved
giving Israel $38 billion of American tax money in military assistance.
But like the Knesset in Jerusalem, we sometimes do disagree about what
the best way is to ensure peace and security, and lively debate is
important to that.
Unfortunately, this rule is about stifling Knesset-style debate. It
restricts and denies any amendment and any alternative. This strict
limitation on debate and this surprise presentation of today's measure
with no public hearing and little warning show how fearful our
Republican colleagues are of a legitimate discussion of this troubling
issue. This is a horrible way to make critical foreign policy. It is
only a step above doing it by tweets, which seems to be the approach of
the day.
Today's resolution, which purports to support Israeli security,
actually undermines that security. It favors going it alone with the
current Israeli Government in defiance of our other allies and the 14
countries that unanimously voted for this Security Council measure.
[[Page H120]]
Isolation--more and more isolation--is not the way to protect Israel.
Those who demonstrate their friendship with Israel by following Mr.
Netanyahu on one right turn after another are boxing in America and
Israel. He is moving us further and further to the extremes so that we
eventually go off a cliff into chaos. As Tom Friedman noted in urging a
negotiated two-state settlement: ``A West Bank on fire would become a
recruitment tool for ISIS and Iran.''
Vote for peace. Reject this resolution.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hollingsworth), who is another freshman
that we welcome to the floor.
Mr. HOLLINGSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule
and the underlying REINS Act because I was sent to Congress to help
hardworking Hoosiers create jobs, keep jobs, and raise wages. As a
small-business owner myself, I understand how difficult it is to build
a business in today's economy, and I want the Hoosiers of Indiana's
Ninth Congressional District to have control over their futures without
fear of unaccountable government bureaucrats with political agendas
creating regulations to restrict their pursuit of success.
I believe the REINS Act will ensure the constituents in Indiana's
Ninth District will not only have a voice, but also a choice in the
laws that govern this great Nation. Hardworking Hoosiers are shining
examples of what Americans can do with the freedom to make their own
economic decisions, and I don't want unelected bureaucrats in
Washington impeding the job-creating growth of Indiana's and America's
businesses.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule
and vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz), who is another new face that is
looking forward to making a difference here.
Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the underlying legislation.
Today the Federal Government's rules exceed 97,000 pages--the most in
American history. So we ask ourselves: Do we really need 20 pages of
rules governing vending machines? Could we cover fuel standards in less
than 578 pages? Would the Union crumble if we didn't have 61 pages of
regulations on residential dehumidifiers?
Each of these rules has compliance costs that exceed $100 million.
In my home State of Florida, we passed a version of the REINS Act.
The result has been repeal or replacement of over 4,000 job-killing
regulations. We can only make America great again if we make Americans
free again--free from the tyranny of unelected Washington bureaucrats
huddled in windowless cubicles dictating to Americans how they should
live their lives, build their businesses, and protect their own
property. Voters sent us here to drain the swamp, but with so many
regulations, we would be lucky to get permission to mop up a puddle.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to address you and my
privilege to be recognized by the gentleman from Georgia.
I wanted to address this rule, and I share some of the sentiment that
came from the gentleman from Massachusetts. I like to have open rules.
I like to have open debates. I would like to have more than one debate
on what we might do with this resolution that is before us. I would
like to have a debate on the one-state solution versus the two-state
solution because I believe that the two-state solution has run its
course and we need to pack up our tools, ship those off to the side,
and start all over again with a new look.
I believe we needed to have a resolution that refreshes this in such
a way that it completely rejected Resolution 2334, that vote that took
place in the United Nations and said to the Trump administration: Let's
start this fresh with a new look rather than a direction of being bound
by implication to a two-state solution.
But that is not what we have ahead of us. What we have ahead of us is
a resolution that has come to the floor under a closed rule that sends
a lot of a good and right message to the rest of the world that America
and the United States Congress reject what happened in the United
Nations the other day and that decision to abstain from that vote. On
the other hand, we really don't have the focus here to take on the rest
of this issue. I am hopeful that we will.
I will be introducing a resolution later today that addresses the
two-state resolution in a way I would like to have done it with a
resolution here.
As I said to the gentleman from California, it is not my intent to
blow up his bill or his initiative. I want to see the best success we
can on what is going on here today.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), who is the distinguished
chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, the problem with this U.N.
resolution is not simply that it criticizes Israeli actions; it is that
it is fundamentally one-sided. It is anti-Israel, and that is a
departure from longstanding, bipartisan U.S. policy.
U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334 does not address the
Palestinian Authority's failure to end incitement of hatred. Frankly,
they encourage it. The violence that we see against Israeli civilians
comes from the encouragement of PA officials. It doesn't address the
Palestinian Authority's continued payments. An incentive payment in
their budget--over $300 million a year--is paid to those who would
carry out attacks against Israeli civilians. The more mayhem you
create, the longer the term you have in prison, the larger the stipend.
That comes right out of the budget of the Palestinian Authority.
The U.N. resolution did not call upon Palestinian leadership to
fulfill their obligations towards negotiations. The Middle East Summit
is planned next month. So, first, the administration abstains on this,
and next month in France there is real concern that another damaging
Security Council resolution should follow.
That is why this dangerous policy must be rejected, hopefully
unanimously, by this House.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield
myself the remainder of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule. It is
not fair. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question
so that Mr. Price, Mr. Engel, and Mr. Connolly can bring up their
alternative to H. Res. 11.
Mr. Speaker, let me say, finally, that I am deeply concerned that the
institution of Congress has been undermined time and time again by this
tendency to be overly restrictive and outright closed. We are supposed
to be the greatest deliberative body in the world, but the problem is
we don't deliberate very much. Everything that is brought to this floor
tends to be a press release substituting for legislation.
{time} 1345
There is no bipartisanship. There is none. There is no working
together. There is none. And that is unfortunate. I think one of the
messages of this last election for the American people was they want to
see things happen here. Not just whatever the Republicans want or
whatever the Democrats want, they want us to see us working together.
I served here as a staffer during a time when there was collegiality,
when Republicans and Democrats came together and passed appropriations
bills and authorization bills and passed major reform bills. That
doesn't happen anymore.
On the issue of regulatory reform, I think you can actually get a
consensus on regulatory reform. There is nobody in this House that
thinks the regulatory process is perfect. The problem is, when you
bring a bill to the floor that is so one-sided, that is poorly written,
that is impractical, we can't support it.
[[Page H121]]
On the issue of Israel, we could have come to a consensus, I think,
and spoken with one voice to show our unwavering support for the State
of Israel. But instead, we have a bill that comes to the floor that is
politically charged--I think that is very clear, based on the tone of
some of the speeches here today--but also has factual errors in it.
The frustration level has grown to the point where some of us in the
minority have taken to protesting. We had a sit-in in response to the
fact that we couldn't get legislation to the floor that said if you are
on a terrorist list, you can't fly, then you can't buy a gun, and a
bill that called for universal background checks.
We thought we had a promise to be able to bring some of this to the
floor. My friends could have voted against it. But we were told, no,
you don't even have the right to debate these bills.
I am going to say to my colleagues sincerely that, unless things
change, you are going to see the discord, the anger, and the
frustration build on this side of the aisle, and you are going to see
it build throughout the country.
There is a reason why people hold Congress in such disdain. It is
because they see this place not as an institution where we can solve
problems but as a place where it is all about obstruction or ``my way
or the highway.''
This is a lousy way to start the new year. Please vote ``no'' on the
previous question and vote ``no'' on this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
It is amazing to me some of the stuff that I have just heard, Mr.
Speaker, just in the last few minutes. And I appreciate my friend
across the aisle, but the debate that we have been having here is
amazing. So that is something I want to talk about, but also something
that came up, just to take a few steps down the road.
It had been mentioned many times here on the floor today that a
unanimous vote by the Security Council in some way implies that it was
right or that it was proper. I am sorry, the groupthink of the United
Nations Security Council on this issue was wrong.
The one that was left silent was the beacon of freedom to the world,
the United States, and instead of engaging, instead of working as we
have in the past abstained or voted against, there have been times when
we actually, as my friend said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, worked
together. When that did happen in the past, there were times in which
Israel and the U.S. worked together to soften or change, and we had, at
that point in time, something that--not liked, but something that could
be lived with. In this case, it was nothing Israel said. This is bad.
America turned its back.
Where was the voice? It was silent. Where was the voice? We voted
absent. That is not what the leader of the free world should do. That
is not what the leader of the free world should do to his closest ally
in the Middle East. That is why we are talking about this.
There are other things we can discuss today. There are other
discussions on two-state solutions on another case on the settlement,
but the bottom line here is that it goes deeper than the other issues.
The deeper part here is that we simply sat silent while the world
mocked and criticized our strongest ally, Mr. Speaker.
So don't talk to me about working together. I get it. But where was
the working together on this? It was absent. A unanimous vote,
especially of the United Nations Security Council, using that as your
justification, I think we need to talk.
But also, Mr. Speaker, when we come to the end, regulatory
environment, the REINS Act is simply saying: Congress, do what Congress
is supposed to do. Congress, work as the voice of the American people.
Work for the voice of helping companies start and create jobs. Work
with the American people to relegate them forward instead of moving
backward.
The REINS Act simply says: let's do our job here. Not the ones who
are closed off from input but the folks who are elected to come to this
place, to come to these hallowed halls and debate what we are talking
about today: debate the regulatory environment, debate the environment.
When we do that, then that is what we need to do.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying bill.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule
and the underlying bill.
I oppose this rule because it makes in order H.R. 26, the Regulations
from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, which is a radical
measure that could make it impossible to promulgate safety regulations
to protect the public.
I oppose this rule because it would effectively shut down the entire
U.S. regulatory system, amending in one fell swoop every bedrock
existing regulatory statute.
The legislation is clearly designed to stop all regulation dead in
its tracks--no matter the threat to health, safety or the economy.
It would neuter the current system's reliance on science, expertise,
and public participation in developing regulations.
H.R. 26 would reshape the regulatory system to work as it did in the
19th Century, before the abuses of the robber barons led Congress to
create a modern and more efficient system to protect public health and
safety.
The REINS Act would require both houses of Congress to approve any
major rule within a limited period of time in order for it to take
effect.
Effectively, this would allow either house of Congress to block rules
simply through inaction, even when an existing statute required action.
The legislation would disempower every federal agency, effectively
rendering their rulemaking activities advisory opinions with no force
of law.
Under REINS, even rules to handle emergencies could be in effect for
only 90 days absent Congressional approval.
H.R. 26 is so grossly slanted against regulation that it will allow
lawsuits to proceed against any regulation Congress could actually
manage to approve.
And the latest version of the bill delays its effective date for a
year so that any Trump Administration efforts to repeal existing
regulations would not get caught up in the REINS Act trap--another
indication that the REINS Act would be expected to stop any regulatory
action from moving forward (because repealing regulations must be done
through regulation, so repeals would in fact trigger REINS.)
In addition to representing an overwhelming threat to the public,
H.R. 26 is also bad for business.
The legislation would require businesses to have to lobby Congress
for each and every significant regulatory change they wanted--no matter
whether those were new regulations, changes in regulation or repeal; no
matter whether the regulatory issues involved disputes between
different industries; no matter how technical the issues involved.
H.R. 26 would, in fact, make the regulatory system less predictable
for industry and would disadvantage any industry that did not have a
large political presence.
It is difficult to exaggerate how fundamentally this alarming piece
of legislation would change American government and how hard it would
make it to protect the public.
This legislative effort is the ultimate giveaway to special
interests.
Under H.R. 26, any special interest could simply use its political
clout in one chamber of Congress to sideline such vital public
protections as limiting the amount of lead in children's products,
preventing salmonella contamination in eggs, reducing emissions of
toxic air pollutants or banning predatory banking practices.
The REINS Act constitutes the ultimate overreach as well, not only
because of the impact it would have, but because Congress already has
ample tools to control the regulatory system.
Congress is already vested with the authority to vote to block a
specific regulation at any time.
And regulation is permitted only pursuant to statutes that Congress
has passed and can amend or repeal.
Under current law, agencies must keep a record of their interactions
with industry and other entities interested in the regulatory process
and provide a clear record of their decision-making (which often must
be able to hold up in court).
Because agencies often take years to review the scientific and
technical evidence relevant to a decision, throwing every final
decision to Congress would undermine this entire process.
In addition, courts can review regulations and an elaborate public
process that can stretch out for years must be followed to issue a
regulation.
Instead, under this legislation, Congress would have to make
relatively rapid decisions, often behind closed doors, and it would not
be legally held to any standard of technical review.
Businesses would no longer have an incentive to cooperate with
agencies and provide
[[Page H122]]
arguments and evidence because they could just take their chances with
the political process, which they would no doubt try to influence with
campaign contributions.
Ultimately, decisions on regulations would be determined solely by
political horse-trading among Members of Congress.
Agencies issue 50 to 100 major rules a year dealing with everything
from Medicare reimbursement to railroad safety to environmental
protection.
But, under H.R. 26, Congress would have 70 legislative days to
second-guess each and every decision covered by the Act.
Because failure to take action would kill any safeguard, Congress
would be forced to hold hearings in a short time on technical issues--
or worse, forgo hearings and race the 70-day clock with even less
information and debate.
This body has already allowed backlog to clog the channels of its
current docket, and this legislation would require that as many as 100
additional measures come to the floor.
This is not an effort to drain the swamp; this is a divisive and
manipulative tactic employed to clog the drain.
Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, this merry-go-round
legislative scheme and the irresponsibility of the House majority in
wasting time trying to shut down the entire regulatory system (because
it cannot win through time-honored, Constitutional legislative
processes) entirely disregard the administrative public support efforts
in place to protect food safety, air and water quality and to limit the
manipulation of our economic system by special interests.
The REINS Act is tantamount to a coup--a right-wing takeover to block
future agency actions regardless of public desires.
The exceptional Americans we serve deserve a Congress that does its
job and keeps our time-honored institutions functioning.
For these reasons and more, I oppose this rule and the underlying
bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 22 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
the House shall proceed to the consideration, without
intervention of any point of order, in the House of the
resolution (H. Res. 23) expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives and reaffirming long-standing United States
policy in support of a negotiated two-state solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The resolution shall be
considered as read. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the resolution and preamble to adoption without
intervening motion or demand for division of the question
except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of House Resolution 23.
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.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235,
nays 188, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 9]
YEAS--235
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Beutler
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--188
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
[[Page H123]]
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--10
Becerra
Collins (NY)
Davis, Danny
Gallego
Lawson (FL)
Mulvaney
Pompeo
Price, Tom (GA)
Rush
Zinke
{time} 1412
Messrs. NADLER and AL GREEN of Texas changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. LAWSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 9.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. McCARTHY was allowed to speak out of
order.)
Recognizing Tim Berry
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, when we as Members of Congress are first
elected, before we are sworn in, before we introduce our first bit of
legislation, the first thing we do is begin to hire, to form a team,
and much of the success that happens on this floor is a lot of work
that is done behind the scenes by our staff. They do a tremendous job
for this country in the public service they provide.
I personally count myself blessed to have had Tim Berry as my chief
of staff for the whole time I have been in leadership. Today is his
last day on our floor. Tim has had 18 years of service in this
institution. He has been in other leadership offices. He went into the
private sector, but when I got elected majority whip, I asked him if he
was willing to come back.
Tim has always demonstrated political wisdom, personal resolve,
dedication, but, most importantly, distinct moral clarity.
He has been here in some of the most difficult times in this
institution. He was in the office when people were actually shot when
an intruder came and took lives in this institution. He has worked on
legislation, he has worked on friendships, and he has worked across the
aisle. But if there were one thing I would define this man as, it is a
family man.
Today, we are lucky to have his wife, Lisa, and daughter, Maeve, in
the gallery with us. And to his other children, Ella and Chris, I want
to thank you for your sacrifice on loaning your father. For every
dinner he has missed, or every phone call he had to take, or maybe that
one or two lacrosse games he couldn't coach, I want to thank you.
But to Tim, I want to thank you for your dedication, I want to thank
you for your friendship, and I want to wish you the very best on behalf
of a very grateful nation and institution. Thank you.
Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, my colleague,
the minority whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the majority leader, Mr.
McCarthy, for yielding.
I rise to thank and to pay tribute to Tim Berry.
Mr. Speaker, the American public sees us so often when we are
confronting one another--disagreeing strenuously sometimes and
disagreeing sometimes disagreeably. What they don't see is the staff
working with staffs across the aisle in a constructive effort to reach
consensus and to move democracy forward. What they don't see is the
collegiality that is engendered through the years between staff who
have the responsibility of ensuring not only that their Members have
full knowledge of what is being considered and their advice and
counsel, but also of assuring that there is positive communication
across the aisle even when we disagree.
Tim Berry has been one of the most adept, most cordial, most
positive, and most effective staffers in effecting that end. We Members
sometimes mask how effective our staffs are. I am sure they will lament
that from time to time.
Tim Berry, I want you to know--we are very proud--is from Silver
Spring, Maryland. He grew up in Silver Spring and grew up in our State.
Tim Berry is a proud son of our State. Yes, he is a Republican; yes, he
has been on staff on the other side of the aisle; but he is an American
first, who has cared about his country, who has cared about this
institution, and who has cared about showing respect and concern for
staffs on both sides of the aisle.
I have had a number of chiefs of staff, one of whom is Cory
Alexander, now the vice president of UnitedHealth. Cory Alexander and
Tim are good friends. They worked together very constructively when Tim
was with Tom DeLay. Mr. McCarthy is in that office, and I had the
privilege of using that office for 4 years. There was never a time when
we walked down that hallway that we didn't think of Detective Gibson
losing his life and Officer Chestnut losing his life outside that door.
Tim Berry was there to serve. Tim Berry served, notwithstanding the
dangers that were self-evident.
Lisa is in the gallery and his children who have been mentioned by
Leader McCarthy. Young people, you can be extraordinarily proud of your
dad. I know, Lisa, you are as well. He has made this institution a
better institution. He has made the relationship between the parties
more positive in times when it was greatly strained.
Tim, thank you. Thank you for your service to the Congress, thank you
for your service to the country, and thank you for your service to each
and every one of us. God bless you and Godspeed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). 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. McGOVERN. 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 231,
noes 187, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 10]
AYES--231
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Beutler
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
[[Page H124]]
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--187
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Becerra
Buchanan
Butterfield
Collins (NY)
Gallego
Meeks
Mulvaney
Pompeo
Price, Tom (GA)
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rush
Velazquez
Walberg
Zinke
{time} 1430
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.
____________________