[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H249-H258]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5, REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF
2017, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 79, HELPING ANGELS LEAD
OUR STARTUPS ACT
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 33 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 33
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. 5) to reform the process by which Federal
agencies analyze and formulate new regulations and guidance
documents, to clarify the nature of judicial review of agency
interpretations, to ensure complete analysis of potential
impacts on small entities of rules, and for other purposes.
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour 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 part A of the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the
[[Page H250]]
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. 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.
79) to clarify the definition of general solicitation under
Federal securities law. The first reading of the bill shall
be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Financial Services 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 part B of the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). 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 Colorado (Mr.
Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
to include extraneous material on H. Res. 33, 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 the
consideration of H.R. 5, the Regulatory Accountability Act, and H.R.
79, the Helping Angels Lead Our Startups, or HALOS, Act.
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate for each bill, equally divided
between the majority leader and the minority leader and the chairman
and the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee,
respectively. The rule also provides for a motion to recommit for both
pieces of underlying legislation.
Yesterday, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from
Congressman Tom Marino and Congressman Hank Johnson, on behalf of the
Judiciary Committee, and from Congressman Huizenga, on behalf of the
Financial Services Committee. We also heard from several Members on
both sides of the aisle who testified on their amendments. The Rules
Committee made in order both amendments submitted for the HALOS Act and
16 amendments from Members on both sides of the aisle for the
Regulatory Accountability Act.
Mr. Speaker, I spoke from this podium last week about the positive,
pro-growth agenda we in the majority are advancing. The bills before us
today are additional pieces of that puzzle, and they help us to return
to commonsense governance that fosters economic success.
H.R. 79, the HALOS Act, was introduced by my friend from Ohio, the
chairman of the Small Business Committee, Mr. Steve Chabot. Last
Congress, very similar legislation passed the House with my support and
by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. The HALOS Act ensures that so-
called angel investors, who serve as the largest funding source for
startups in the United States, are able to effectively hold educational
economic development events, like ``demo days.'' The bill also helps to
ensure that startups can connect with angel investors who can serve as
funding sources, mentors, or outside directors.
In plain English, the HALOS Act helps to ensure that small,
innovative companies and startups have access to the necessary capital.
This, in turn, enables these companies to expand and generate jobs that
put Americans back to work while fueling our economy as a global hub of
innovation.
Mr. Speaker, in order to keep America's market competitive, we must
relieve American job creators and employees from suffocating
regulations. We can move toward this by helping government function as
our Founders intended. Our Constitution lays out a system of three
coequal branches of government, which is meant to fulfill unique roles
and to provide checks and balances for one another.
Over time, we have allowed cracks to form in that system, and we have
gradually seen executive agencies usurp power from the elected
officials of the legislative branch--to the detriment of hardworking
Americans and the separation of powers. We, too often, see unelected
bureaucrats handing down regulations that have enormous impacts on
small businesses, family farmers, individuals, and families. In an
unfortunate irony, these bureaucrats are isolated from the very
entities they are trying to regulate.
Congress must stop ceding authority to the executive and reassert the
power of the legislative branch to write law. The Regulatory
Accountability Act helps us do just that. It helps us to ensure that
burdensome rules that handcuff American business with red tape aren't
crushing our economy, our competitiveness, or our future. It also
restores common sense to the rulemaking process.
H.R. 5, the Regulatory Accountability Act, combines six bills that
have previously passed the House. I am a proud cosponsor of this
legislation.
I thank Chairman Chabot, Chairman Goodlatte, and Chairman Marino for
their thoughtful and diligent work on this legislation. Additionally,
Congressman Ratcliffe and Congressman Luetkemeyer contributed important
provisions to this package.
The bill reforms the process by which Federal agencies analyze and
formulate new regulations and guidance documents, clarifies the nature
of judicial review of agency interpretation, and calls for more
complete analysis of the potential impact of rules on small entities.
H.R. 5 includes the text of the Separation of Powers Act, which
amends the Administrative Procedures Act to overturn two doctrines that
call for judicial deference to agency interpretations of statutory and
regulatory provisions: the Chevron and Auer doctrines.
In plain English, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act prevents
Federal bureaucrats from interpreting the legality of their own
regulations at the expense of hardworking Americans and the
constitutional separation of powers.
Title I of the Regulatory Accountability Act requires agencies, when
establishing new rules, to consider the lowest cost option that meets
statutory requirements. The bill also provides for more public input in
the rulemaking process. Title IV of the bill, the Providing
Accountability through Transparency Act, requires agencies to publish
plain-language summaries of new proposed rules online. These proposals
are not farfetched. Instead, they provide more information and a voice
to the American people while reining in agencies that have gotten drunk
on their rulemaking power.
Mr. Speaker, our current administration issued over 600 major
regulations with an economic impact of over $740 billion. These numbers
show the staggering number of rules put forth by the executive branch,
but nowhere are the true costs of regulations highlighted better than
in the stories that I hear from my constituents. I know other Members
hear similar stories, and all across the Nation, we are seeing the toll
that overregulation has taken on growth and competitiveness.
Back home in northeast Georgia, Elbert County is known as the granite
[[Page H251]]
capital of the world, but a rule put forth by OSHA that is related to
silica levels threatens to jeopardize that industry; and, of course,
there is the waters of the United States rule, which could negatively
impact everyone from farmers to ranchers to Realtors. The menu labeling
rule is yet another example of a misguided regulation that the
administration has put forth without impunity. That rule would raise
costs for businesses, from restaurants to convenience stores, leading
to higher costs for consumers--in actuality, hurting the very ones that
it proclaims to help.
This is the irony of many of these regulations. Sadly, they are borne
out in the costs to the American people.
Last year, the EPA finalized a rule that established Federal
standards for residential wood heaters. In rural districts like mine,
many individuals may count on wood heaters to keep their families warm.
This EPA rule will raise costs for consumers and undermine families'
decisions about what type of heater may work the best for them.
Mr. Speaker, is this really where we want to go, having the Federal
Government decide things like this, away from the scrutiny of the
elected body? I think not.
The examples from this administration are numerous, but, importantly,
this problem of overregulation is not unique to this administration.
This is not a Republican or a Democratic problem. This is a balance of
power problem; this is a problem between branches not doing what they
are supposed to be doing and staying within that.
{time} 1245
The Regulatory Accountability Act helps ensure that this
administration and future administrations do not ignore Congress by
writing law through regulation. It returns transparency to the process.
It restores Congress' rightful place as the legislative branch and
reins in the unelected fourth branch that regulators have become.
Mr. Speaker, many of the bills in this package have previously passed
with bipartisan support. I hope my colleagues can continue to agree
that Congress should make the laws and that we should do so in such a
way that encourages growth, innovation, and American ingenuity.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
thank the gentleman from Georgia for the customary 30 minutes.
We will get to the content of the bills in a moment, but there is a
procedural issue here that disenfranchises millions of American
citizens in this process.
We are in the 115th Congress since the founding of this country. We
were just sworn in last week to begin that. There are 56 new Members
who just started serving last week that have never served in this body
before, and there were 56 people that served in the last session who
are no longer with us. What we are doing here is we are taking bills
that those former Representatives worked on and new Representatives
have not worked on and advancing them to the floor without going
through committee, without going through the regular order.
So, for example, you have two bills, H.R. 5 and H.R. 79. We will talk
about them in a moment. These are Committee on Financial Services
bills. They should have gone to that committee, and members of that
committee, Democratic and Republican, would have had the chance to
amend those bills in that committee and mark it up before it comes to
the floor. That is the normal process. Both parties are now
constituting those committees; we are putting people on them.
I heard you, Mr. Speaker, read just before we began this debate how a
number of Members were officially appointed to those committees. That
is what we do in our first week or two.
Fifty-six new Members should have a say on these bills. They will get
a vote on the floor on these bills, but they were completely excluded
from the committee process that wrote these bills. That is wrong, Mr.
Speaker, to not allow 56 new Members of this body to be the lawmakers
that the people of their districts elected them to do. In fact, it
disenfranchises the tens of millions of people collectively that those
56 Members represent. And I hope that, for future legislation, we can
move through regular order and allow the new Members, as well as those
who are returning, to be part of the lawmaking process.
With regards to these bills, we have largely seen these bills in
prior sessions that people who are no longer in this body worked on.
The HALOS Act, I was proud to support last session and I am proud to
support again. It addresses a potentially real problem. There is
guidance from the SEC that--in our Rules Committee meeting yesterday I
questioned the subcommittee chair--largely also addresses those
concerns, but it is better to do it in statute and it is better to do
it in the broader language that is included in the bill, which is why
many Democrats--I hope a majority--support the HALOS Act.
The United States is the leader in innovation in the global economy,
and this is a small piece of that. What we are talking about here are
demo days where entrepreneurs can pitch their idea. I, personally, have
been able to attend a number of those, and it is a question of who can
be in the room when that occurs.
Should it only be millionaires who are allowed in that room? Or can
it be the next great generation of entrepreneurs? Can it be students?
Can it be aspiring entrepreneurs? Can it be community members who want
to learn what it means to pitch and how to do it and how ideas are
spread, or maybe they are looking for a job?
It doesn't change who can invest in those startup companies. They
still have to be qualified investors. By the way, I hope we have the
opportunity to work with Republicans on the definition of ``qualified
investor'' because I think it is unfair to restrict investment
opportunities to multimillionaires. We need to allow educated and
qualified investors of all levels.
Just because somebody is rich doesn't mean that they are a good
investor, and just because somebody has not yet earned a lot of money
doesn't mean that they can't be trusted to invest $10,000 or $50,000 of
their own money.
We made progress in the original JOBS Act with the result of
crowdfunded investing, but that is only a small piece--almost an
insignificant piece. Private placements are the much larger piece of
capital formation for venture-stage startups in our country. If there
is a way we can have an alternative to the net worth test that allows
individuals to, perhaps, take a qualitative test of their knowledge
and, therefore, qualify as an investor, they ought to be able to do
that, too.
This bill does not do any of that. That is a controversial area. It
is one that it will take Democrats and Republicans working together on
to help fund tomorrow's great companies and allow opportunity for all
people, not just millionaires and billionaires.
What this bill does is it continues to restrict the actual investors
to the millionaires. Okay? But it allows other people in the room at
least. That is a start. It allows an MBA student who him- or herself
wants to, perhaps, come up with their own company to hear 10 or 20
companies pitch so they can assemble their own deck; somebody who might
have a great amount of value to give as a mentor who themselves is a
veteran of a number of companies. Maybe they are not quite worth a
couple of million dollars. Maybe they are worth only--only, right?--
$500,000. Maybe they were a reasonably successful person worth
$500,000, but they have a lot of knowledge to give.
Without the HALOS Act, it would be unclear whether that person would
even be allowed in that room. So we want to make sure that mentors, up
and coming, young entrepreneurs, and, frankly, up-and-coming
entrepreneurs of all ages have access to the knowledge and the learning
that can occur in these pitch events.
Congress has a role in making sure we have laws in place that really
help build an environment that promotes innovation. When we passed the
JOBS Act in 2012 that allowed for crowdfunding, Congress took a step
forward. We have room to go there, room to go with private placements.
The HALOS Act is a small step, but it is a good one and a
noncontroversial one. It creates a clear path for startups to
participate in demo days, sponsored by government entities, nonprofits,
angel investment groups, et cetera, and
[[Page H252]]
a clear safe harbor from the SEC with regard to the definition of
general solicitation to make it clear that business experts and others
can be in the room, while maintaining that only existing accredited
investors can actually participate in offerings under Regulation D for
the purchases or sale of securities that are mentioned in those
demonstrations.
Currently, sponsors of demo days are relying on the 12-year-old, no-
action letter by the SEC to make sure that they don't face the
consequences of failing to comply. The guidelines outlined by the SEC's
no-action letter are actually incorporated into the HALOS Act. So, in
many ways, this clarifies and puts in statute something that has been
at the whim of the SEC for too long.
The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) and others will join me in
talking about the importance of angel investors for early stage capital
to create jobs, to allow tomorrow's great entrepreneur who might not
have any resources of their own today to raise the resources they need
to hire people and succeed.
The Center for Venture Research estimates that U.S. angel investors
invested $24.6 billion in about 71,000 small businesses in every area,
every congressional district of our country. Many of those were
startups in the early stages of building a company.
Tomorrow's company that employs 10,000 or even 50,000 people is
today's garage startup trying to figure out how to get $50,000 or raise
$100,000 to make their payroll or buy their inventory.
Angel investors focus their investment on local startups and much
more so than, for instance, national venture capital firms that tend to
be clustered at the coast. It is an important way we can continue to
grow the economy in every ZIP code in this country, across the
heartland and the middle of the country, not just the coasts where the
venture capital firms themselves are situated.
The Colorado-based digital home design firm, Havenly, started by two
sisters, utilized demo days as networking opportunities to perfect
their pitch to investors, a very common path. After participating in a
500-startup demo day, the pair received nearly $13 million in
investment capital from qualified investors. Now Havenly is a thriving
business, employs hundreds of interior designers across the country,
and I am proud to say it has a staff of 40 people in their Colorado
headquarters. Havenly is a perfect example of how demo days provide
opportunities to startups that create real jobs for real people in our
country.
The HALOS Act simply gives the same opportunities to other startups
that thousands of others have had when getting off the ground.
I believe the HALOS Act is the appropriate approach to regulatory
relief. I appreciate the bipartisan nature of the legislation. It is
targeted to provide clarity around a specific potential problem and
certainty around what these events can entail.
Now, there is another bill under this rule as well. It is a bad bill.
It is not a strong bipartisan bill. It is called H.R. 79. Since we
began the 115th Congress here, the Republicans are promoting a
deregulation agenda. Often this agenda results in this body, Congress,
potentially being buried in having to do inordinate amounts of work to
review the executive branch of government.
Now, we all believe in oversight of the executive branch. Believe me,
Mr. Speaker, you are going to hear many Democrats speaking up about how
important oversight of the executive branch is, particularly for the
incoming administration.
We are not the executive branch. Congress delegates authority to
agencies, under the laws we write, to fill in gaps and decide how best
to implement the law. If we disagree, we can always change or amend the
authorizing statute to make more clear the intent of this body.
However, these bills being brought to the floor by the Republicans
would either require Congress to spell out exactly what ways to
implement a policy in a changing world or give the authority of how to
interpret and implement law to the judicial system, neither of which
are wise or expedient choices regardless of who occupies the
Presidency.
While I certainly will have more sympathy with this approach with
President Trump in the White House than President Obama in the White
House, I still believe this is the wrong way to go about the separation
of powers under our Constitution.
This bill sets out 60 new analytical requirements that agency actions
must meet before they can be implemented. In other words, any attempt
by agencies to protect the public from toxic substances, make sure our
planes and trains are meeting safety regulations, or make sure our food
is toxin free would be subject to 60 new bureaucratic hurdles,
effectively creating more and more red tape to tie the bureaucracy up
rather than make their work quicker and more efficient, which is what
Democrats seek to do.
This bill would bury the agency rulemaking process under a blizzard
of bureaucratic hurdles and documentation requirements, literally
burying the executive and administrative branch of government in red
tape and paperwork. This bill would hold the regulatory process hostage
to the whims of the very corporations and bureaucrats whose rulemaking
it is designed to address.
The process that the bills call for have been roundly discredited by
so many experts on regulatory policy from the left and the right and
consumer advocates as well. The administrative law and regulatory
practices section of the American Bar Association stated that these
burdens would reduce transparency, reduce public input, threaten public
safety, and, most importantly, not result in any better rules.
This bill is nothing other than a recycled effort that 56 Members of
this body have not had a chance to participate in writing through the
committee process to slow down the government and get in the way of
agency rulemakings that are critical for protecting public health,
safety, and our environment.
We are simply failing our constituents that we are elected to serve
by spending time on legislation that would deliberately sabotage our
own ability for our government to function efficiently. This is a bill
that would make government less efficient. That is not what I hear when
I am back home from my constituents--Democrat, Republican, Independent.
I don't hear: Go to Washington to make government less efficient. My
constituents want government to be more efficient.
Finally, this bill is being considered under a structured rule
limiting the amendment process. There were over 30 amendments filed.
Yet, we are only considering 16 amendments under this very overly
restrictive rule. This is particularly onerous because, again, there
was no opportunity for the 56 new Members through the committee process
to amend this bill.
There was a new Member that appeared before the Rules Committee
yesterday. Unfortunately, he was not even allowed to advance his
amendment to the floor under this rule.
Another example is an amendment offered by a new Member, Ms. Blunt
Rochester, who filed an amendment that would ensure that LGBT employees
are protected from workplace discrimination. It would allow Federal
agencies that are tasked with protecting the civil rights of employees
to continue to do their work without being hamstrung with unnecessary
requirements.
Civil rights protections do not fit neatly into a corporate monetary
analysis, and our government has a responsibility to ensure that all
Americans are protected from arbitrary or unjust discrimination based
on race, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
Given the breadth and scope of this legislation, an open amendment
process would have allowed this amendment to be debated if the majority
wanted, perhaps even voted down, although I hope the majority would
have approved it. It would have produced a more thoughtful piece of
legislation. Yet, we are not even allowed to have that debate on the
floor of the House, which is why this rule is wrong and why I stand in
strong opposition to it.
We should be considering legislation to create permanent, high-paying
jobs, investing in infrastructure to grow our communities, fixing our
broken immigration system, and streamlining and improving our tax
system through tax reform rather than recycling old bills
[[Page H253]]
that 56 Members have not even had the opportunity to put their imprint
on.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule for those very
reasons.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1300
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think there is no better way to start this Congress
fresh but with some understanding. It is very clear, and it has become
obvious to Members here on the floor, that there is a discussion going
on. And, Mr. Speaker, if Members would like to see the difference that
is being portrayed here on the floor today, it is very obvious. There
is one party that is really concerned about tying the hands of
bureaucrats; and there is one party, the majority, that is looking to
untie the hands of the American people. I think I will side on the side
of the American people and job creators and job promoters, and those
who go out every day and earn a living.
We worked on this last Congress, and I will talk about it again here.
Let's not start the strongman that Republicans are wanting to do away
with all regulations. We do not. We want government to operate in the
most efficient manner possible and do what it needs to do, but also get
out of the way.
The problem with government, many times the government has
overstepped where it needs to be, and it needs to be out of the way to
start with.
Also, I would like to at least clear the record and make something
understood. At the beginning of the year, we are bringing a rule. We
had a full Rules Committee hearing yesterday, and Members were able to
offer amendments. Not all amendments were made in order. Sixteen
amendments were made in order on both sides of the aisle. I would like
to remind Members, Mr. Speaker, as we go back in history, we are
promoting discussion here in the Rules Committee and bringing to the
floor and allowing Members to talk about amendments and give them the
opportunity.
I will just remind Members, Mr. Speaker, in the 111th Congress, which
was controlled by my friends on the other side of the aisle, in the
very first rule bill they brought, the rules for the House, they put
two major bills in the rules package that did not even get a rules
hearing, that did not get anything except just pushed to the floor. I
think we will stand firm that we are pushing to the floor stuff that
Americans care about, and also doing it in a way that Members can
participate.
Speaking of that, the American people, especially the good folks of
Nebraska, have sent to us a new Member, and I have gotten the chance to
know him.
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon), and I welcome him to the floor.
Mr. BACON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the
underlying bill which provides for H.R. 5, the Regulatory
Accountability Act of 2017.
I promised my district in eastern Nebraska that I would work my
hardest to rein in an out-of-control bureaucracy that is burdening our
Nation with over 3,000 new regulations each year. The cumulative cost
of all of these regulations passed each year cost approximately $2
trillion, almost 10 percent of our GDP. That is a tremendous burden,
and it largely falls on our small businesses, farmers, and community
banks.
I meet often with our local, small business owners. The top concern
that I hear, and they are loud and clear, and I hear it over and over,
is that regulations and ObamaCare are preventing them from growing,
and, in some cases, making it very difficult for them to stay afloat.
There is anger that the health of our businesses are not being
undermined by competition or new technology, but they are being
undermined by their own government, and they are angry about it.
I have promised my district that I will be aware and push back on
these regulations and on a bureaucracy that is on steroids. That is
what we are doing today by passing H.R. 5 and by passing these rules.
I think one of the Members of the very first Congress and the writer
of our Constitution would be proud to see H.R. 5 passed. James Madison
thought the separation of powers was vital to the safeguarding of our
Republic. In recent years, we have seen that separation of powers
undermined by an overzealous bureaucracy that creates laws, then
executes those laws, and then acts as their own appeal authority.
Madison said the accumulation of powers--legislative, executive, and
judiciary--in the same hands is the very definition of tyranny. Today,
we move toward the right balance, toward restoring the separation of
powers and lifting the burden that has been put on our small businesses
and farmers.
I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, when we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up a bill that would establish a
national commission to investigate foreign interference in the 2016
election.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately
prior to vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, we have all been very concerned about the
reports from our own intelligence agencies about foreign interference
in the 2016 American elections.
I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) to
discuss our proposal, the ranking member of the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in strong opposition to this rule so that it can be amended to
include consideration of H.R. 356, Protecting Our Democracy Act, which
is sponsored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell) and yours
truly.
Mr. Speaker, we are presently in a struggle for the soul of our
democracy. This legislation would create an independent commission to
examine Russian attacks on our electoral process. I am pleased that all
of my House Democratic colleagues have joined in this bill and that
similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate.
I want to be clear about why we are here today. It is not just about
the past. It is about the future. The CIA, the FBI, and the NSA have
issued a declassified report warning that Russian entities acted under
the orders of Vladimir Putin to execute ``an influence campaign,'' and
they say they did this ``to undermine public faith in the United States
democratic process.'' Again, I say: our democracy is under attack.
Our intelligence agencies explain that Moscow's attacks will not end
with the attacks they launched in 2016. They warn that Moscow ``will
apply lessons learned from its campaign aimed at the U.S. Presidential
election to future influence efforts in the United States and
worldwide. . . . '' Democracy under attack.
These Russian attacks on our electoral process were attacks on our
Constitution, our people, and they are attacks on our great Nation. Our
intelligence agencies are warning that if we do not respond now, the
Russians will attack us again.
Mr. Speaker, we must not take our democracy for granted. We must
guard this democracy. We must guard the fundamental foundation of that
democracy, and that is a vote, and a vote with integrity. We are all
Members of the Congress of the United States of America. We have taken
an oath to protect and defend our Constitution and our great Nation.
That is what this legislation is about. It is not about Donald Trump.
It is not about Hillary Clinton. It is not about Republicans,
Democrats, or independents. It is not even about 2016. It is about our
future, and it is about generations yet unborn. We cannot allow
ourselves to be distracted from our solemn duty and our solemn oath. We
cannot allow foreign attacks on our electoral process to become normal
or inevitable. They are neither.
This legislation attempts to rise above politics. If there was any
moment in our history when we should be rising above politics, it is
this moment.
[[Page H254]]
This commission is intended to be truly bipartisan, to have an equal
number of Democrats and Republicans, to examine how Russia and any
other foreign powers interfered with our elections, including hacking
Federal and State political parties and disseminating fake news stories
intended to warp public opinion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Most importantly, this bipartisan and independent
commission will make recommendations to try to prevent any foreign
power from interfering in our elections again. I sincerely hope
Republicans, including the President-elect, who, for the first time
ever, will swear his own oath to protect and defend our Constitution,
will join us in supporting this independent commission.
I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so this
rule can be amended to require consideration of the Protecting Our
Democracy Act.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the distinguished ranking member of the
Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and
Investigations.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado,
and I thank my good friend from Georgia. It is important to take note
of the value of democracy and the discourse on this floor, and my
friendship with the gentleman from Georgia, but absolute disagreement
with him on our purposes here.
Yes, regulation should be fair, and it should cede to the
administrative process and the administrative laws that dictate how
they should be formulated, and that fairness should be their
underpinnings. But I think my constituents, in terms of the regulatory
scheme, are far more interested in clean water and clean air. They are
far more interested in making sure that consumer products that impact
toddlers and babies are enforced. They are far more interested in
ensuring that there is competition to the FTC, and that there are fair
energy laws to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Having said that, I am disappointed as well that we are moving
forward on H.R. 5, which is a bill that went through the Judiciary
Committee, and, as my colleague from Colorado said, with 56 new
Members, it did not go through regular order. We are recycling the same
bad bill again.
I rise today to express concern over the number of amendments that
were presented that were good amendments that did not get in. Before I
speak to the amendment I am concerned about, first, I want to speak to
the previous question. I support the gentleman from California (Mr.
Swalwell) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) on a very
important statement, and that is in the tragedy and the heinousness of
9/11, we formulated the 9/11 Commission.
Mr. Speaker, there is no more heinousness than a foreign nation
interfering with the just and fair voting of every American. There are
many who lost their life in the name of one vote, one person. For that
reason, I would make the argument that it is imperative that this bill
be amended to create the commission that will address the question of
foreign intrusion, particularly Russian intrusion and hacking in our
election.
I believe this election was skewed, in spite of the peaceful
democratic transfer of government, which we will all adhere to, but
there is no doubt. This does not compete to 2001 with President Bush in
Florida. It does not compete to 2004 with Mr. Kerry. It is beyond any
kind of comprehension of what happened in this election, a direct
intrusion and skewing of this election. But, more importantly,
protecting the systems of election and the voting rights, the
preciousness of the voting rights, is crucial to democracy.
This commission, independent of any of the committees that should be
working--and I agree, Congress should be working. Senator McCain has
already begun working--a Republican--but this commission would be a
vital asset. So I am certainly disappointed that the amendment I had
that was crucial as relates to cybersecurity to deal with the question
of cyber intrusion was not made in order. It would have been
appropriate for us to have an amendment that would have spoken directly
to the idea of identifying new tactics or techniques that a malicious
actor might deploy, or detect and disrupt an ongoing intrusion, in
addition to protecting the data that enables cybersecurity firms and
other network defenders to identify certain malware that the Russian
intelligence services use.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman.
This amendment would have been vital to have not only a vigorous
discussion on the floor but also to recognize that cybersecurity has
now become a potential weapon. I have worked on this issue for a decade
as the former chairwoman of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Subcommittee. It was under my subcommittee that we began to look at
electric grids and began to see the enormous power of the cyber world.
My amendment should have been included because we are now faced with
what the cyber world used as a weapon can do. I am disappointed that
that amendment was not made in order. I am disappointed that H.R. 5 is
again before us without regular order, and would hope that we have the
opportunity to vote for and support the previous question to find out
what happened and who conspired to alter our elections in 2016.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the
underlying bill.
I strongly oppose this rule because it makes in order H.R. 5, the
Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017, 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.
My opposition to H. Res. 33 is amplified by the Rules Committee's
decision to decline to make in order the Jackson Lee Amendment, ``to
provide an exception for regulations that help prevent cyberattacks on
election processes or institutions.''
Apparently, House Republicans are still reluctant to debate the
subject--undisputed by our Intelligence community--of Russian
cyberattacks on American cyber networks and infrastructure.
Key Judgments in the Intelligence Community Assessment's declassified
version of a highly classified report entitled, ``Assessing Russian
Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections,'' have confirmed
that 2016 witnessed the first American presidential election that was
the subject of cyberattacks.
These and other subversive activities have been confirmed to have
been perpetrated by entities allied with the Government of Russia and
were undertaken for the express purpose of influencing the presidential
contest to secure the election of its preferred candidate, Donald
Trump, who made history by becoming the first presidential candidate to
invite a hostile foreign power to launch cyberattacks against his
political opponent.
All three agencies, CIA, FBI and NSA, agree with this judgment.
The so-called Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA), in addition to
this rule, demonstrates the deceptive design of the majority to make it
harder to establish regulations to protect the public by tilting the
entire regulatory system significantly toward special interests.
The bill allows Federal courts without expertise on technical issues
to substitute their judgment for those of the expert federal agencies.
These agencies are staffed with career subject matter experts that
are deeply knowledgeable of the background, context, and history of
agency actions and policy rationale.
For this reason, courts have long deferred to agency experts who are
in the best position to carry out the statutes.
The RAA would end this well-established practice and allow far less
experienced judges to second-guess expert opinion--essentially
sanctioning judicial activism.
The Jackson Lee Amendment, however, would have attuned this dangerous
legislation to provide an exception for regulation upon which Americans
so greatly rely on their government to help prevent cyberattacks on our
highly coveted and esteemed election processes and institutions.
The bill promoted by the majority, calling for accountability from
our Administrative Agencies--fails to answer in accountability to the
threat posed by foreign and domestic invaders on our national cyber
networks.
[[Page H255]]
As the new Congress commences in the People's House, obstructionist
Republicans are circumventing the very procedures by which elected
officials answer the cries of outrage and dismay of desperately
concerned constituents.
To the obstructionist majority perpetuating this restrictive rule,
let me stand firm in the American convictions laid bare by the Jackson
Lee amendment--the system of Checks and Balances established by the
Separation of Powers clause of the Constitution will not be thwarted.
The spirit of the H.R. 5 is clearly designed to stop all regulation
dead in its tracks--no matter the threat to cyber networks, national
security, economy, or the very health and safety of the American
people.
We know that Russia's cyber activities were intended to influence the
election, erode faith in U.S. democratic institutions, sow doubt about
the integrity of our electoral process, and undermine confidence in the
institutions of the U.S. government. These actions are unacceptable and
will not be tolerated.
The mission of the Intelligence Community is to seek to reduce the
uncertainty surrounding foreign activities, capabilities, or leaders'
intentions.
On these issues of great importance to U.S. national security, the
goal of intelligence analysis is to provide assessments to decision
makers that are intellectually rigorous, objective, timely, and useful,
and that adhere to tradecraft standards.
Applying these standards helps ensure that the Intelligence Community
provides U.S. policymakers, warfighters, and operators with the best
and most accurate insight, warning, and context, as well as potential
opportunities to advance U.S. national security.
This objective is difficult to achieve when seeking to understand
complex issues on which foreign actors go to extraordinary lengths to
hide or obfuscate their activities.
My amendment would have improved H.R. 5 by exempting only those
regulations critical to making cyber networks invulnerable to attack
from foreign and domestic agencies and individuals.
Specifically, the amendment that the Rules committee disallowed for
presentation on a vote here on the floor today would have provided the
American people an exemption to allow for the prevention of tampering,
alteration, or misappropriation of information by agents of foreign
countries with the purpose or effect of interfering with or undermining
election processes or institutions.
In particular, restrictions put forth in H.R. 5 could result in
further delay to agencies attempting to take action to help network
defenders better identify new tactics or techniques that a malicious
actor might deploy or detect and disrupt an ongoing intrusion, in
addition to protecting data that enables cybersecurity firms and other
network defenders to identify certain malware that the Russian
intelligence services use.
The Regulatory Accountability Act provides no accountability to the
American public.
Instead, it allows polluting industries and special interests to game
the system and escape accountability for any harm they inflict.
It makes it incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to secure new
public protections and arms industry with numerous tools to avoid their
legal obligations.
The increasing use of cyber-enabled means to undermine democratic
processes at home and abroad, as exemplified by Russia's recent
activities, has made clear that a tool explicitly targeting attempts to
interfere with elections is also warranted.
We cannot afford to let global terroristic threats, in the form of
cyber activities, erode faith in U.S. democratic institutions, sow
doubt about the integrity of our electoral process, influence
elections, or undermine confidence in the institutions of the U.S.
government.
My amendment would have offered protections guarding the integrity of
our cyber networks, while at the same time allowing the bill to achieve
the proponents' major purposes.
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.
{time} 1315
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Swalwell).
Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and allow an
amendment to be put forward on H.R. 356, the Protecting Our Democracy
Act.
A public report was released on Friday by the FBI, the CIA, and the
NSA, and it was chilling. It declared that Russia attacked our
democracy in the past Presidential election. It said that the attack
came from the Russian services themselves. It was ordered by Vladimir
Putin and, most concerning, that Russia had a preferred candidate and
that they sought to denigrate Secretary Clinton along the way.
Going forward, this is not about relitigating the past. Donald Trump
will be the next President. This is about preserving the integrity of
our democracy and saying that our dialogue, our democracy, these fights
between our parties, they belong to us.
The report also said that Russia intends to do this again. We know
that Russia has done this before across the globe to our allies. They
are doing it right now to other countries as they seek to move forward
in their democracies. Now other foreign adversaries of ours will look
at what Russia did, if we do nothing, and see an opportunity to strike
us again.
So we have an opportunity, as Republicans and Democrats, to come
together and say that the victims may have been the Democratic Party in
this past election and, if history has its way, in the next election it
may be a different party.
The constant will always remain this: both parties will unite to say,
We believe that this democracy, which has been fought and sacrificed
for, is worth defending. To do that, we should have an independent,
bipartisan, appointed commission to look at how this was able to occur,
why our democracy was so vulnerable, and, most importantly, make
recommendations to the public to ensure that this never happens again.
We should do this so, first, we can devote ourselves fully--with an
independent commission, you have full-time members and full-time
staffs--to understanding what happened.
Second, we should do this to depoliticize what has occurred. The
incoming President has continuously undermined the findings of our 17
intelligence agencies that Russia was responsible. We should
depoliticize this by taking this out of Congress and having an
independent commission, once and for all, sign off on who was
responsible and, again, make recommendations to protect us going
forward.
We should also declassify, to the extent possible, the evidence
behind the findings.
Finally, once this commission is formed and once congressional
investigations also take place, the American people have to come
together. We have to come together because we can never again let an
outside meddler influence our elections. So we have every single House
Democrat cosponsoring this legislation.
This legislation should not be partisan at all. When you talk to
Republicans and you talk to Democrats in our districts and you talk to
Independents, they all express a concern about what Russia did. So what
we can do in this House is say: We are united. We are united to get to
the bottom of what happened.
So I invite my Republican colleagues to join us in the search for
what happened. Join us in this responsibility to do everything we can
to tell our constituents that, in the next election, we won't let it
happen again. Defeat the previous question and support H.R. 356, the
Protecting Our Democracy Act.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, are there any more speakers the
gentleman from Colorado has?
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentleman from
Georgia is.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I am prepared for the gentleman to close. I
reserve the balance of time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, so, in summary, when we defeat the previous question, we
will then bring forward our bill to establish an independent report on
foreign interference in this most recent 2016 election, something that
the American people deserve to see, that we need to see. We need to put
safeguards in place to prevent our election system from being hijacked
by foreign powers.
With regard to the rule, Mr. Speaker, it is a bad, closed rule,
particularly given the chance that 56 new Members of Congress have not
had the opportunity to add their imprint to the bills that are before
us.
The gentleman mentioned, oh, the Democrats did this 10 years ago.
Well,
[[Page H256]]
that is hardly an excuse that the American people buy. There were many
things about the Democrats' tenure in this body the American people
didn't like; and to simply cite some of those less popular elements of
Democratic leadership and now say: Well, now we Republicans are going
to do earmarks; now we Republicans are going to have a closed process
that doesn't allow amendment; now Republicans are going to gut the
ethics rule.
In over 200 years, you can always cite some precedence for that from
both Democrats and Republicans, but those aren't good things. We want
to learn from our mistakes, I hope, and not say, just because some
Democrat or some Republican did this in 1952, it is a good thing to do
today.
Mr. Speaker, we are 6 days into the next Congress. After we defeat
the rule, hopefully, and defeat the previous question, we can bring
forward an independent study on foreign interference.
With regard to these two bills, I urge my colleagues to join me in
voting ``yes'' on the HALOS Act and, of course, oppose the ridiculously
broad H.R. 5, Regulatory Accountability Act, which would simply add
more paperwork to the bureaucracy, further reducing the efficiency of a
branch of government that many Americans believe is already too
inefficient.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and
``no'' on the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I serve a wonderful part of the world. With all due respect to all
the other Members of Congress, I do believe it is one of the fairest in
the country.
As I go around and travel, one of the things I have not heard, Mr.
Speaker--and I am not sure if you have or other Members sitting here--I
have never been hit, when I run into something saying the fact that
government is efficient, and I am really wanting it to be efficient in
a sense that it is working for me.
It is a very obvious statement here, and what we see time after time
after time after time is rules and regulations that most of the
American folks are saying: Government, do what you are supposed to be
doing. Get us back on a fiscal financial path that is solid, that
balances, that gets us back in understanding that we can't spend more
than what we make or bring in, and that we have to have a strong
national defense. Let's get back to the things that make America the
shining light all around the world.
One of the things I do not hear them asking me to do, Mr. Speaker, is
make it easier on bureaucrats in Washington. I have not had them beg
and bring petitions to my table and say: Please make it easier on
bureaucrats to run our lives.
That is not what we do. What we are trying to do is simply say: Let's
get up, go out to work, do the regulations that matter. Make sure that
government does what it is supposed to do. Make sure that the balance
of power is honored and not looked upon with disgrace. It is looked
upon as something that should be taken care of. Let the legislative
body be the legislative body. Let the executive be the executive, and
let the judicial be the judicial.
I have no problem putting before the American people the choice: Do
you want a party that will defend a bureaucracy that stifles them? Or a
party of the majority, like we are, that are putting forward regulation
reform that says, We want to help you; we are concerned about you?
Obvious choice, Mr. Speaker. Today we have two opportunities to this
rule. They both look at our economic engines in the country and
reviving it again.
The HALOS Act helps us ensure that small businesses have access to
the capital necessary to grow and succeed. Small business is the
backbone of our economy, and it makes sense to enact policies that
promote the viability and growth.
The Regulatory Accountability Act restores simple checks and balances
so that Congress, once again, makes laws so they work better for those
who elected us.
It is time we demand the voice of the American people be heard rather
than letting the others up here, separated in cubicles, decide what is
best. When we look at that, the obvious choice is clear. You pass this
rule, you vote ``yes'' on these bills, and you say to the American
people: I agree with the majority.
We are looking after those that get up every day and have the
American Dream in front of them and get up and say: I want to be better
and I want my government to be out of the way.
When we understand that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support
this rule and the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 33 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2
(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for
consideration of the bill (H.R. 356) to establish the
National Commission on Foreign Interference in the 2016
Election. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At
the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 356.
____
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
[[Page H257]]
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. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on agreeing to the resolution, if ordered;
and agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234,
nays 179, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 26]
YEAS--234
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)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
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 (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
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)
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--179
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
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
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
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
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--21
Becerra
Crowley
Davis, Danny
Dingell
Duncan (SC)
Hoyer
Johnson (GA)
Jones
Kelly (IL)
Mulvaney
Perlmutter
Pompeo
Price, Tom (GA)
Richmond
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Schakowsky
Smith (TX)
Takano
Wilson (FL)
Zinke
{time} 1346
Messrs. McEACHIN, BROWN of Maryland, SCOTT of Virginia, SCHNEIDER,
and LAWSON of Florida changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. HILL 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:
Ms. WILSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have
voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 26.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 233,
noes 183, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 27]
AYES--233
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)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
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 (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
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)
[[Page H258]]
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
NOES--183
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
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
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
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
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
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--18
Becerra
Davis, Danny
Dingell
Duncan (SC)
Gutierrez
Johnson (GA)
Jones
Kelly (IL)
McCaul
Mulvaney
Perlmutter
Pompeo
Price, Tom (GA)
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Schakowsky
Takano
Zinke
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1357
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.
____________________