[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.

                          ____________________