Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 36 (Wednesday, March 1, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 36 (Wednesday, March 1, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H1408-H1419]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SEARCHING FOR AND CUTTING REGULATIONS THAT ARE UNNECESSARILY BURDENSOME
ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Newhouse). Pursuant to House Resolution
150 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 998.
Will the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) kindly take the chair.

{time} 1309

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 998) to provide for the establishment of a process for
the review of rules and sets of rules, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Rogers of Kentucky (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday,
February 28, 2017, amendment No. 7 printed in House Report 115-20
offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi) had been
disposed of.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Bonamici

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 115-20.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page H1409]]

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 31, after line 24, add the following new title (and
update the table of contents accordingly):

TITLE VI--EXEMPTIONS

SEC. 601. EXEMPTION RELATING TO CONSUMER PROTECTIONS FOR
STUDENT LOAN BORROWERS.

The provisions of this Act do not apply to any rule or set
of rules prescribed by the Secretary of Education with
respect to providing consumer protections for student loan
borrowers.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 150, the gentlewoman
from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oregon.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the amendment to
protect student loan borrowers from the dangerous provisions of the
SCRUB Act.
More than 40 million Americans have student loan debt. Roughly one-
quarter of these borrowers are behind on their payments either in
delinquency or default. The Federal Government has a responsibility to
protect these borrowers and American taxpayers from unscrupulous
institutions that saddle students with exorbitant debt in exchange for
an education of dubious value.
Hardworking students, like those who attended Corinthian Colleges or
ITT Tech, could be harmed if Congress passes a law that potentially
strips them of a clear process for having their debt forgiven after
institutions fabricate job placement figures or close unexpectedly.
This bill could allow institutions like Corinthian Colleges to
require pre-dispute arbitration clauses, and prohibit class-action
lawsuits--making it much less likely that students will get the justice
they deserve when a school misrepresents the quality of its programs.
Millions of borrowers who rely on popular income-driven repayment
plans could be left without options for keeping their payments
affordable.
Active-Duty servicemembers could lose access to deferment benefits.
Rules banning incentive pay could be undone, exposing student
veterans and others to aggressive marketing.
This bill could weaken Federal protections for millions of student
loan borrowers when, instead, Congress should be working together to
make college more affordable.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, as we pointed out yesterday, the SCRUB Act
requires the commission to identify regulations that should be
repealed. The commission focuses on rules and regulations that are out
of date, no longer useful, and otherwise unnecessary or obsolete.
As I stated yesterday, no regulations should be exempt from this
bill. Not all consumer protection regulations are created equal. If the
regulation is important, effective and still relevant, then let it
stand. If the regulation is not effective, no longer valuable and
unnecessary, then why keep it around?
This amendment is just another wrong-headed carve-out that will end
up hurting student loan borrowers more than it could possibly help
them.
And for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose
this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Davis), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Higher Education and Workforce Development.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to protect student
loan borrowers. Protecting our young people should be a priority for
every single Member of this Chamber. A major way that we are able to
defend our students is through the safeguards that are at stake today.
These protections, like provisions which ensure students are able to
find gainful employment or have recourse if a school misleads them,
have been integral in the wake of unethical practices by certain
schools. We have seen the damage that schools like ITT Tech and Ashford
University have done in districts like mine. And as a military town,
the students in San Diego are particularly vulnerable to bad actors in
the for-profit education industry.
I can tell you, Mr. Chair, I have heard from students who can't get
the degrees they need to provide a better life for their families;
veterans who write to me imploring us to protect the men and women who
would have spent their lives protecting us; students who write to me
frustrated by this Chamber's insistence on deregulation for
deregulation's sake; and many more who write letters saying, education
is important to us. And we believe it should be important to you as
well.
Let's prove them right, Mr. Chair. Let's show that education is
important to us, and let's commit to keeping key provisions for
students intact.

{time} 1315

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, everybody wants to see gainful employment for
our students, our college students especially.
Those institutions that have preyed on these students also are as a
result of a regulatory environment that has allowed that to happen.
That same regulatory environment would be under review, under oversight
by the SCRUB Act. For those reasons particularly, we need to make sure
that we do not have this amendment, but, more importantly, that we do
allow for the underlying bill.
For those reasons, again, I urge opposition to this amendment by my
colleague.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Polis), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of Congresswoman
Bonamici's amendment.
Today, our country owes over $1.3 trillion in student debt. In
Colorado, the average student loan borrower owes $26,000.
Why would we want to risk abolishing consumer protections for our
borrowers?
These are very personal numbers. The stories I hear, the burden of
student loan debt affects people's ability to own a home or buy a car.
A recent report from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found
that the number of student loan borrowers over the age of 60 has
quadrupled. People haven't even paid off their loans as they enter
retirement age.
Now, the Obama administration did take important steps to protect and
support student loan borrowers. They made it easier for them to pay
back their loans and ensured they were treated fairly by student loan
services. Rolling back these protections would have far-reaching
negative effects for our borrowers.
I strongly support Congresswoman Bonamici's amendment, exempting
Federal protections that support consumer protections for student loan
borrowers from the SCRUB Act. The last thing we need to scrub away is
protections for people to take out student loans.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, the SCRUB Act is completely unnecessary.
Agencies can already review and repeal regulations that are no longer
needed. The only thing this bill does for people with student loan debt
is give them less certainty that their investment will be worth it.
At a time when a college degree or credential is a critical tool for
securing a family-wage job, it makes no sense to threaten to rescind
rules that shield Americans from career programs that leave students
with large debts and low wages.
I encourage all of my colleagues to adopt this amendment to safeguard
consumer protections for student loan borrowers.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

[[Page H1410]]

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Bonamici

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in House Report 115-20.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 31, after line 24, add the following new title (and
update the table of contents accordingly):

TITLE VI--EXEMPTIONS

SEC. 601. EXEMPTION RELATING TO ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY
EDUCATION ACT OF 1965.

The provisions of this Act do not apply to any rule or set
of rules relating to title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 150, the gentlewoman
from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oregon.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to
exempt rules related to title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act from the misguided provisions of the SCRUB Act.
Title I is the core feature of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, a critical civil rights law that holds States accountable for
helping all students succeed.
The SCRUB Act threatens rules for implementing title I, which, in
turn, threatens students. For example, title I rules clarify important
accountability requirements that we passed into law just last session
with strong bipartisan support.
Clear rulemaking is necessary to give education leaders certainty so
they can benefit from the law's new flexibility and innovate on behalf
of students.
Title I rules also include important details about the use of
assessments in schools. These rules were negotiated with broad
consensus. Would the SCRUB Act repeal them and deny States
clarification about reducing the burden of testing?
My colleagues across the aisle may argue that no rule should be
exempt from the SCRUB Act and that somehow the unelected commission in
the bill will identify only bad rules. I am not so sure. The commission
in the bill could create any methodology for targeting rules and,
without knowing the commission's method, it is disingenuous to say that
essential rules, good rules, wouldn't be affected.
Additionally, rules are rarely black and white as the majority
suggests. Title I accountability rules, for example, sometimes push
States to report on how they are serving each subgroup of students. But
where some local officials may complain, these rules make sure that
low-income and minority families are being counted.
Will the commission hear the concerns of those families?
I ask my colleagues to protect vulnerable students across the country
by supporting this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chair, this amendment would exclude from the
commission's review regulations under title I, part A of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act, as amended.
ESEA provides financial assistance to local educational agencies and
schools with high numbers or high percentages of children from low-
income families to help ensure that all children meet challenging State
academic standards.
No regulation should be exempt from the review process, especially
those regulations that impact low-income students across the country.
It is imperative that we have smart, targeted, cost-effective
regulations that actually help the people that need the help.
Imposing ineffective regulations on schools and educational agencies
cost taxpayers money--this must be given the opportunity for oversight,
as is given under the SCRUB Act--and overburden our already exhausted
educators, and can cause more harm rather than good.
Why not take a look at these regulations and just consider whether
they are working? And, if they are, then let's leave them alone. But if
not, then, let's change them there.
There is no reason why we should create, again, a special carve-out
from the commission's consideration. For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Polis), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Congresswoman
Bonamici's amendment, which I am also proud to cosponsor.
When ESEA, or the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, was first
passed in 1965, it truly was a landmark and important piece of civil
rights legislation. It is written with the intent that every student--
no matter their race, their economic background, their ZIP Code--
deserves a great education in our country.
Title I of ESEA gets at the heart of the civil rights spirit for
providing additional funding for schools with significant populations
of high-needs and at-risk students. Now, title I also provides
important performance and equity parameters for States and districts
and gives some direction about how States can comply with these
requirements to support our most struggling schools.
Of course, the text of the law doesn't do everything, which is why we
rely on the protections that have been put in place through rule.
The SCRUB Act would allow an unelected panel to carelessly do away
with important civil rights protections and transparency, the opposite
of the legislative intent in the ESEA.
The Department of Education regularly goes through an extensive
process for finalizing regulations, and to do away with these
protections on a whim by an unelected, all-powerful panel may somehow
score political points, but it is at the expense of students across our
country.
I strongly support Representative Bonamici's amendment that would
exempt title I from this harmful bill, and I urge its passage.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, since 1965, when the ESEA was passed, we have
gone from chalkboards to iPads. Things have changed. The regulatory
environment has changed.
May I remind my colleagues that, under the SCRUB Act, the bipartisan
review committee would make these recommendations for changes in the
regulatory scheme to Congress, who would have the final say as to
whether any regulations need to be changed.

Again, for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to
oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Davis), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Higher Education and Workforce Development.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to suppose the ESEA
title I protection amendment.
We all know education, at its core, is a civil rights issue. We have
a responsibility to ensure that every student has access to a world-
class education, and this is especially true for children who come from
families with limited means.
For our working class families, a quality education can be--and
actually is--the ladder which raises an entire family's prospects. The
protections that we are debating today ensure that these students and
their schools are not shortchanged from the resources they need in
order to be successful. These are resources that they are entitled to
by law.
Last year's Every Student Succeeds Act was a very successful
bipartisan compromise, so let's not gut the protections that are
crucial for its effective implementation before it is even given a
chance.

[[Page H1411]]

A student's ZIP Code should not determine the quality of his or her
education. A family's income should not determine their child's career
prospects, and a school's location should not determine its resources.
Let's come together to protect our most vulnerable students because,
as we all know, today's investments in education will determine our
future.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, may I inquire to the remaining time, please?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 1 minute
remaining.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act is a key Federal law for advancing equity in our Nation's
classrooms. The rules implementing title I provide important details
that make sure historically underserved students have access to an
equal public education. These rules are too important to entrust to a
mysterious commission.
I am very proud of the work I did in the State legislature repealing
unnecessary education rules and statutes. We did it in a very
collaborative, bipartisan manner through existing processes. That is
what we should be doing, not going through this SCRUB Act.
I urge my colleagues to protect title I rules, stand up for
educational equity, and support the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Raskin

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in House Report 115-20.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 31, after line 24, add the following new title (and
update the table of contents accordingly):

TITLE VI--EXEMPTIONS

SEC. 601. EXEMPTION RELATING TO CLEAN AIR ACT.

The provisions of this Act do not apply to any rule or set
of rules relating to the enforcement of the Clean Air Act
(Public Law 88-206; 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 150, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would protect all rules
relating to the enforcement of the Clean Air Act, which are in danger
now under H.R. 998, the SCRUB Act, which seeks to authorize a brand new
$30 million Presidential commission of unelected and unaccountable
bureaucrats to wipe out agency rules across the whole field of
government.
Mr. Chairman, last night in this Chamber, the President of the United
States came and articulated policy areas where he said his
administration ``wants to work with Members of both parties.'' One of
these was to promote clean air and clean water. I was happy to hear it
because earlier in the day he signed an executive order to clear the
way for weakening safe drinking water standards through redefinition of
which small bodies of water are covered under the Clean Water Act.
Now, the amendment I propose provides a chance for all of us to start
fresh in demonstrating our seriousness about this new bipartisan
commitment to protect the water we drink and the air that we breathe.
The SCRUB Act proposes to create a commission to do what Federal
agencies and commissions already do, which is to review and update
their rules. That is why a lot of us are deeply skeptical about
spending $30 million to create a new roving commission to hack away at
rules protecting the public interest.
This commission would be made up of five members appointed directly
by the President at his discretion and four members by the President
from congressional nomination, too, from each party.
The advocates for this legislation say it is not about dismantling
the rules that protect the water that our children drink or the air
that our children and our grandparents breathe or the food that all of
us eat. It is just about getting rid of unnecessary and obsolete and
profligate regulations. And I take them at their word that that is what
it is about.

{time} 1330

So let's all agree that the new supercommission that you seek to
establish under the SCRUB Act will not touch, in any way, the rules
adopted under the Clean Air Act. If that is not the purpose of this
legislation, to undermine the Clean Air Act regime, as its advocates
repeatedly insist, then there should be no problem having us formalize
this commitment on a bipartisan basis.
Right now, the SCRUB Act does not explicitly protect clean air--or
clean water, for that matter--from the prospects of a roving
bureaucratic attack. Thus, it exposes all of us to unnecessary harm,
threatening to scrub away the rules that protect the air we breathe.
What will that mean for 17 million Americans with asthma, for the
millions of people with lung cancer and other respiratory diseases, for
more than 30,000 people struggling with cystic fibrosis? All of these
people are potentially in danger simply because of an overblown
ideological attack on regulations, which are just the rules that we
adopt as a constitutional democracy to protect ourselves from harm.
In answer to objections about the bill, the majority says that
Congress will still have its say; but if you read it carefully, you see
that congressional authority has actually been placed in a
straitjacket. The bill requires an up-or-down vote on the commission's
recommendations as a complete omnibus package rather than voting on
each proposal individually.
So if you agreed with loosening some regulations, for example, in the
Title X Family Planning program, which has a lot of rules, but you
don't want to eviscerate the regulatory infrastructure under the Clean
Air Act or the Clean Water Act, you would have to vote on the entire
package at once. This makes Congress into an embarrassing rubber stamp
for a nine-person body effectively controlled by the executive branch.
Dear colleagues, let's not play games with the health and safety of
our constituents. If this bill passes as is, rules that govern the very
air we breathe would be subject to the SCRUB Act's unelected,
unaccountable, and unbounded practitioners. My amendment closes a
gaping and dangerous hole in the legislation. I ask my colleagues to
think about public health and safety first, and not the magical
thinking and scientifically ungrounded cost-benefit analysis promised
by the SCRUB Act.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, this bill, again, requires the commission to
identify regulations which should be repealed. The commission focuses
on rules and regulations that are, again, out-of-date, no longer
necessary, no longer useful, or otherwise obsolete.
Regulations promulgated under the Clean Air Act need to be examined
and updated just as much as any other regulations. Reviewing and
revisiting regulations promulgated decades ago allows the opportunity
to improve upon existing standards.
According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Environmental
Protection Agency regulations cost the public $353 billion a year.
Given the high costs associated with EPA regulations, excluding these
regulations from this review process just doesn't make any sense. $353
billion--more than one-third of a trillion dollars--needs review.
Importantly, this bill has several significant procedural hurdles to
pass before any regulation would be repealed: the commission must
determine the regulation is no longer necessary; the commission must
recommend repealing the regulation; and, most significantly, Congress
would need to vote to get rid of the regulation. No regulation would be
repealed without a vote by Congress.
This is reinstating the authority that this body has, and for these
foregoing reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.

[[Page H1412]]

I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my
colleague from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment to exempt rules
under the Clean Air Act from this bill.
According to a 2011 study by the Environmental Protection Agency, the
central benefits of the Clean Air Act exceed costs by a factor of more
than 30 to 1, and the high benefits exceed costs by 90 times. Cleaner
air provides exceptional economic benefits because it results in the
improved health and productivity of Americans and reduces medical
expenses for air pollution-related health problems.
The Clean Air Act will prevent thousands of early deaths; and its air
quality and health benefits, including the prevention of heart attacks
and the reduction of pulmonary diseases like chronic bronchitis, will
grow over time.
Representative Raskin's amendment, which would exempt all rules that
relate to the Clean Air Act, is based on common sense. Cleaner air
benefits every man, woman, and child in the country. If the
Environmental Protection Agency is prevented or delayed from
promulgating new regulations relating to the Clean Water Act because of
cost, the children of this country will pay a very heavy price.
I hope that all Members will understand the need for exempting rules
that result in cleaner air for our children and support this amendment.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, this bill, when passed, does nothing to
remove any regulation. What it does is exactly what we were elected to
do: provide transparency and oversight over existing regulations to
determine whether they are necessary or not. For those reasons, Mr.
Chairman, I would again urge opposition to this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Moore

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in House Report 115-20.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 31, after line 24, add the following new title (and
update the table of contents accordingly):

TITLE VI--EXEMPTIONS

SEC. 601. EXEMPTION RELATING TO TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS.

The provisions of this Act do not apply to any rule or set
of rules--
(1) relating to any obligation of the Federal Government
with respect to a Tribal government; or
(2) supporting Tribal sovereignty and self-determination.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 150, the gentlewoman
from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It just says
that the provisions of the SCRUB Act will not apply to any rule or set
of rules relating to any obligation of the Federal Government with
respect to tribal government or supporting tribal sovereignty and self-
determination.
Mr. Chair, the United States has a unique legal and political
relationship with Indian tribal governments, as outlined in the
Constitution, treaties, statutes, executive orders, and judicial
decisions. However, too often they have been overlooked when it comes
to Federal policies that will have a direct impact on that relationship
and that sovereignty.
My concern is that, without explicit language, H.R. 998 would simply
continue this mistake, which has had devastating consequences for our
Native American brothers and sisters. It has been a decades-long policy
of the Federal Government to engage Native American tribes in a
government-to-government relationship that respects their right to
self-government and self-determination, and my amendment seeks to
ensure that nothing in this bill will undermine those efforts.
My amendment would exempt rules that will have an impact on this
government-to-government relationship from the bill's requirements.
This will, of course, require agencies and this commission to examine
the impact on this special relationship in each rule that they bring to
the chopping block. It makes clear that protecting the sovereignty and
promoting the economic, political, and social self-determination for
the Native American community remains a pressing priority.
Now, just 2 days ago, Mr. Chairman, the House considered and passed a
bill, H.R. 228, the Indian Employment, Training and Related Services
Consolidation Act, to make permanent a program that allows tribes to
combine up to 13 different Federal, employment, childcare, and job
training funding sources.
Of course, the sponsor of this legislation, Representative Don Young,
a true champion for Native Americans, described it well. He said:
``This program is what tribal self-determination is all about. Tribes
understand their members best and know how to use these tools for
creating expanding job opportunities in their communities.''
The same thing with NAHASDA, which has a lot of innovations, and I
have worked with Congressman Steve Pearce and Representative Cole and
others. Once NAHASDA reauthorization becomes law, it, too, might fall
short because of this particular bill. I fear that the SCRUB Act's
reckless rush to repeal rules based primarily only on one
consideration, cost to the economy, will adversely affect Native
Americans.
How will members of this commission be experts on the sovereignty and
government-to-government relationship with tribes? There is no
appointee for Native American communities on this commission, on the
needs of native communities, on efforts by Congress to promote self-
determination. The bill requires zero such knowledge and participation.
Additionally, simply requiring agencies to blindly--blindly--cut
regulations is just nonsensical by itself.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the prime example of why we
need the SCRUB Act. ``Federal Management of Programs that Serve
Tribes'' was added to the Government Accountability Office biannual
high-risk report released earlier this month. The GAO reported: ``For
nearly a decade, we, along with inspectors general, special
commissions, and others, have reported that federal agencies have
ineffectively administered Indian education and health care programs
and inefficiently fulfilled their responsibilities for managing the
development of Indian energy resources.''
Look, the GAO found numerous challenges, including poor conditions at
schools, inadequate healthcare oversight, and mismanagement of energy
resources that limit the ability of tribes to create economic benefits
and improve the well-being of their communities.
Clearly, the Federal Government is not getting this right, and we
need to exercise our oversight. We need more attention to this issue,
not less.
Exempting regulations relating to tribal governments is simply wrong.
It keeps in place outdated and ineffective regulations that are
burdening our tribal governments. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, this is precisely why the Members should
adopt my amendment: because this is an unelected commission, and the
relationship between Native American tribes is a government-to-
government relationship.
If the gentleman is correct that we need to review regulations and
change them, then that is something that

[[Page H1413]]

needs to happen with Native Americans seated at the table. As my good
friend Linda Sanchez often points out, when you are not at the table,
you are definitely on the menu.
History has shown that failure by the Federal Government to consider
the impact on tribal communities and to include their voices in Federal
decisions has often left undesirable and devastating policy. Such
consideration is disrespectful of their sovereignty and disrespectful
of our Constitution. Such consideration is a critical need for us to
create and maintain a strong and productive Federal-tribal
relationship. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, the regulations that we are talking about in
the GAO report that are so ineffective, that have been a failure, are
those regulations that have been imposed by unelectable bureaucrats in
the bureaucracy that we are trying to reach back and gain not only
oversight, but transparency as well. The SCRUB Act needs to be there
for that particular purpose, and, for those reasons, this amendment
should be opposed.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin
will be postponed.

{time} 1345

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Cummings

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in House Report 115-20.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 31, after line 24, add the following new title (and
update the table of contents accordingly):

TITLE VI--EXEMPTIONS

SEC. 601. EXEMPTION RELATING TO PROTECTIONS FOR
WHISTLEBLOWERS.

The provisions of this Act do not apply to any rule or set
of rules relating to--
(1) protections for whistleblowers; or
(2) penalties for retaliation against whistleblowers.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 150, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would exempt from this bill
any rule that protects whistleblowers or that imposes penalties on
individuals who retaliate against whistleblowers. This bill would
jeopardize all agency rulemakings--no matter how important--even rules
that protect whistleblowers.
The Department of Energy issued a ruling in December that would
authorize the department to impose civil penalties on Federal nuclear
contractors who retaliate against whistleblowers who report information
concerning nuclear safety. On January 31, 2017, DOE put a moratorium on
that rule in response to President Trump's mandated freeze on
rulemakings.
This is exactly the kind of rule that could become a casualty of this
bill. We must ensure that agencies can issue rules that protect
individuals who blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse, as well as
safety issues that can be a matter of life and death.
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the Project on
Government Oversight supporting my amendment. That letter states:
``Whistleblowers are the first and best line of defense against
significant problems on federal projects and must be protected from
retribution for the act of reporting wrongdoing. Regulations to protect
those whistleblowers should be exempt from the SCRUB Act 2017.''

Project on

Government Oversight,

Washington, DC, February 28, 2017.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington
DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf of
the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), I would like to
voice my support for the whistleblower protection amendment
to the Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are
Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2017 (SCRUB Act) introduced
by Ranking Member Elijah Cummings of the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee.
POGO is an independent nonprofit that has, for 35 years,
investigated and exposed corruption and misconduct in order
to achieve a more accountable federal government. As such,
our organization is deeply committed to protecting
whistleblowers within the federal government and its
contractors. This amendment will explicitly protect any
agency-promulgated regulations that protect whistleblowers or
that lay out penalties for those who retaliate against
whistleblowers from being targeted as ``unnecessarily
burdensome'' under the SCRUB Act.
These regulations, like a Department of Energy (DOE) rule
that would have allowed the Department to impose civil
penalties against contractors who retaliate against
whistleblowers, are already being disrupted by the current
regulatory freeze. Whistleblowers are the first and best line
of defense against significant problems on federal projects
and must be protected from retribution for the act of
reporting wrongdoing. Regulations to protect those
whistleblowers should be exempt from the SCRUB Act of 2017.
We are happy to champion this amendment and hope it will
receive the bipartisan support it deserves.
Sincerely,
Danielle Brian,
Executive Director.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Let me say that whistleblowers have played a very
significant role in our committee, the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee. As a matter of fact, many of the reforms that have come have
come because people were bold enough to stand up and come forward and
provide information that we would not have gotten. One of the things,
Mr. Chairman, that we have said over and over again on a bipartisan
basis is that we will protect whistleblowers.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying that my colleague from
Maryland, the ranking member of the full committee, has been and
continues to be probably one of the strongest advocates for
whistleblower protections, and I thank him and laud him for that. But I
must disagree with him in regard to this amendment.
No one regulation is the perfect and ideal regulation that will last
into perpetuity. All regulations need to be reviewed, and that is what
this rule does. The commission focuses on rules and regulations that
are out of date, no longer useful, and are otherwise unnecessary or
obsolete.
Regulations that were promulgated with the original intent of
protecting whistleblowers need updating and consideration as much as
any other regulation does. Reviewing and revisiting regulations
promulgated decades ago creates the opportunity to improve upon
existing standards.
Excluding whistleblower regulations from this exercise means that
whistleblowers would lose out on the chance to streamline regulations
and reduce burdens that might be harming whistleblowers. In fact, this
process could actually help protect whistleblowers in its oversight and
transparency.
Importantly, this bill has several significant procedural hurdles to
pass before any regulation would be repealed. The commission must
determine that the regulation is no longer necessary; the commission
would then recommend repealing the regulation; and, again, most
significantly, Congress would need to vote on the regulation in order
to get rid of it.
Again, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.

[[Page H1414]]

Mr. CUMMINGS. Let me say this, Mr. Chairman, I have, as the ranking
member of our committee, had many opportunities to sit and listen to
whistleblowers who were shaking in their shoes. They were worried. But
there was something that they wanted to do that was far more important
to them than just that moment. They were trying to make sure that they
did the right thing, and they brought it to the attention of people
that they thought would listen to them and would do something about
their concerns when they felt they had got to the point where, in many
instances, they felt that they had nobody to go to.
This administration has been very interesting. If there is any time
that we need to be protecting whistleblowers, it is right now because
there are so many people in our government who feel that they are under
threat. They see things changing, and many of them are in fear.
I appreciate what the gentleman said, but I don't care how you look
at this. If somebody has the nerve to come up and say, I want my
government to be better--some people have told me, I want to preserve
my democracy. I want it to be a democracy for my children so they can
have the democracy that I had when I was born--and they have the nerve
to come up, then we have to do everything in our power. We have to send
that message, and the message needs to come from here. It may not come
from the White House, but it has got to come from here.
That is why this concerns me so much. Any message other than that
says to those people that they have got to keep hiding, they have got
to keep shaking in their boots, and they have got to keep silent when,
deep in their souls, they want to make a difference.
We are better than that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, again, nothing in the SCRUB Act does anything
to remove any of the protections that already exist for whistleblowers.
This essentially makes it open for review, but, more importantly, as I
agree with my colleague from Maryland, we need to protect the
whistleblowers. And if it be the focus of Congress to do just that,
then we must, irrespective of the SCRUB Act, focus on strengthening
those laws that protect our whistleblowers to make our government run
more transparently, more effectively, and more efficiently.
Again, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland
will be postponed.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 115-20 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 8 by Ms. Bonamici of Oregon.
Amendment No. 10 by Mr. Raskin of Maryland.
Amendment No. 11 by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin.
Amendment No. 12 by Mr. Cummings of Maryland.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Bonamici

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon
(Ms. Bonamici) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191,
noes 235, not voting 3, as follows:

[Roll No. 109]

AYES--191

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
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--235

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
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
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton

[[Page H1415]]

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

NOT VOTING--3

Amodei
Hudson
McNerney

{time} 1419

Messrs. FERGUSON, PAULSEN, YOUNG of Iowa, MARSHALL, POE of Texas,
BILIRAKIS, JENKINS of West Virginia, MULLIN, THOMPSON of Pennsylvania,
RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois, and DUFFY changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Messrs. PETERS, GALLEGO, and SUOZZI changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Raskin

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Raskin) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189,
noes 231, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 110]

AYES--189

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
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--231

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
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
Peterson
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.
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
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
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

NOT VOTING--9

Collins (NY)
Cuellar
Hudson
McCaul
Pelosi
Rush
Stivers
Tiberi
Trott

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1427

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Moore

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 111]

AYES--197

[[Page H1416]]

Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

NOES--229

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
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
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 (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
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
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--3

Hudson
Pelosi
Scott, David

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of Georgia) (during the vote). There is
1 minute remaining.

{time} 1432

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Cummings

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Cummings) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194,
noes 231, not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 112]

AYES--194

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)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
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
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young (IA)

NOES--231

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
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 (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
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
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
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)
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Zeldin

[[Page H1417]]

NOT VOTING--4

Hudson
Lowenthal
Pelosi
Scott, David

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1436

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Fleischmann). There being no further
amendments, under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Collins of Georgia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Fleischmann, Acting
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 998) to provide for the establishment of a process for the review
of rules and sets of rules, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to
House Resolution 150, he reported the bill back to the House with
sundry amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time and adopted.

Motion to Recommit

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. RASKIN. I am, indeed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Raskin moves to recommit the bill H.R. 998 to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith
with the following amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following new title (and
update the table of contents accordingly):

TITLE VI--EXEMPTIONS

SEC. 601. EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES OR SETS OF RULES.

The provisions of this Act do not apply to any rule or set
of rules relating to--
(1) any law governing a potential conflict of interest of
an employee or officer of the executive branch;
(2) any law governing the financial disclosures of an
employee or officer of the executive branch; and
(3) bribery.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill,
which will not kill the bill or send it back to the committee. If
adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as
amended.
The purpose of this amendment is simply to carve out from the
provisions of the legislation any rules that we have adopted in order
to prevent conflicts of interest and in order to promote financial
transparency and disclosure by executive branch employees.
Mr. Speaker, since I became a Member of the House in January and
joined the Judiciary Committee, we have been subjected to an onslaught
of bills seeking to free corporate polluters, lead paint and asbestos
manufacturers, and other abusers of the rights of consumers and
citizens from having to face the people they injure in court and having
to comply with the rules that have been worked out over the decades to
protect our air, our water, our land, our people, our health, and our
workplaces.
In most cases, we don't even get hearings on these bills. In the
Judiciary Committee, I have not seen a victim of toxic torts or lead
poisoning or medical malpractice testify, but their rights are being
flattened every single day by the legislative bulldozer that is running
amuck.
These bills are flying at us with lightning speed--no hearings, no
real debate, no time to study the measures, no time to do the proper
information gathering for our constituents.
Now the SCRUB Act would establish an unelected roving commission with
unlimited subpoena power. It would be controlled by the President who
gets to appoint a clean majority--five members at his own discretion;
and four more, two Republicans and two Democrats. So when they say it
is bipartisan, remember what that means: Seven spots for majority
appointees and two spots for minority appointees. More importantly,
this roving commission can be lobbied behind closed doors by the
special interests that want to splice and dice the regulations that we
have worked out over the decades to protect the public against harm.
In all of the rules that our democracy has put in place--not just old
rules, not just obsolete rules, not just silly rules--all of them are
going to be in the crosshairs of this roving commission--no exceptions,
no firewalls, no protections for rules governing public health and
safety--like the Clean Water Act or like the Clean Air Act. They just
rejected the amendment to carve that out. There are no protections,
significantly, and this is what the amendment is about, for rules
guaranteeing transparency in government and integrity in government.
My motion to recommit, Mr. Speaker, would incorporate into the
underlying legislation an amendment that I advanced in committee that
goes to the heart of the crisis of confidence in Washington, in America
today. I think every Member of this body can support it without
betraying any of their principles or their party. On the contrary, I
think it strengthens all of our principles and it strengthens our
parties by building public confidence in the political system as a
whole. It makes sure we can keep draining the swamp, as the President
of the United States said in this Chamber last night.
My amendment states very simply that the Commission may not target
for destruction any rules relating to any law governing a potential
conflict of interest of an employee or officer of the executive branch,
or any law governing the financial disclosures of executive branch
employees, and bribery.
Right now, we know there is a dangerous crisis in popular confidence
in the national government. This administration has brought to
Washington a web of complicated conflicts of interest, real or
potential, attendant to a global business empire that engages in
business with foreign governments, foreign and domestic corporations,
and a huge host of regulated entities.
Just a mile from where we sit today, for example, the Trump Hotel is
renting out guest rooms, ballrooms, meeting rooms, and whole floors to
foreign governments, embassies, and large corporations in flagrant
violation of the Emoluments Clause, article 1, section 9, which
requires the President to come ask us--Congress--for permission to
receive payments from foreign governments.

{time} 1445

They even have a director of diplomatic sales now. Furthermore, the
standard lease that the Trump Hotel has with the General Services
Administration forbids any elected official of the United States
Government or the District of Columbia from deriving any profit or
value from the lease. Clearly, there is a breach in this lease right
now. The problem is that the President is not only the tenant, he is,
for all intents and purposes, the landlord too because he controls the
GSA and appoints its director. So President-landlord Donald Trump would
have to go to court to sue tenant businessman Donald Trump for
breaching the lease by collecting money under it as a public official.
This just scratches the surface of a welter of ethical conflicts.
Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill which will not
kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will
immediately proceed to final passage as amended.
Since I became a member of this House in January, my Freshman
colleagues and I have been engaged in two activities. First, we've been
sitting in hearings and trying to make sense of bills that
fundamentally change the legal and regulatory structure of America--and
we've done so without hearing from witnesses, without time to study
measures, and without time to do the proper information gathering that
I believe is necessary to serve our various constituencies. Second,
we've come to the floor at the end of each day to cast votes on
deregulation. This house has been in the business of loosening rules on
everything. We've

[[Page H1418]]

made it easier to pollute, easier to harm consumers--all in the name of
cutting regulatory costs. And so it's no surprise that a bill like this
sailed through the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to the
floor.
This bill would establish an unelected commission with unlimited
subpoena power and partisan majority to chop through the Federal
Register with a chain saw. There are no exceptions, no firewalls, no
protections for rules and regulations governing health and safety and
there are no protections for rules guaranteeing transparency in
government.
My motion to recommit would incorporate into the underlying
legislation, an amendment I offered in committee. It's straightforward
and unburdensome. In fact, when I offered it in committee one of my
colleagues on the other side indicated that the priority of this bill
is ``major rules with massive costs.''
If passed, this MTR would make certain that no provision of the SCRUB
Act could be used to eliminate rules relating to laws that govern
conflicts of interest of executive branch officers or employees. That's
it--it reinforces existing law and clarifies provisions of this bill.
Surely, we can agree that rules designed to help maintain the public
trust in those representing them in the Executive Branch are sacred
enough to be explicitly protected. And if anyone should ask why it's so
important, we don't have to look too far. This administration is a
walking, talking billboard for the need to protect laws that protect
the public trust.
I urge my colleagues to support this common sense measure.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting because creatively my friend
from Maryland is trying to do unsuccessfully what they have done all
along unsuccessfully, and that is just create a carve-out of
regulations for review by the SCRUB Act.
Now, what regulation is so perfect it should never be reviewed again?
None. And that is why the SCRUB Act is so important. You see, this bill
went through regular order.
In the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, we went through a
markup, and my friends across the aisle had an opportunity to make
their amendments. We came to the floor. They had an opportunity to make
their amendments. Two were accepted--made it a bipartisan bill.
But, more importantly, let's take the impact of this bill and what it
does to our economy. The Small Business Administration says that
annually each business must pay $20,000 a year in compliance costs
because of our regulatory environment. The Competitive Enterprise
Institute says that that is $15,000 per household.
Members, we were elected to be accountable to those who elected us;
not to allow some unaccountable, unelectable bureaucracy to make rules
and regulations that have filled up 178,000 pages of the Code of
Federal Regulations.
Let us do what we were elected to do, and reach back and take that
authority that we have given to these regulatory agencies. Let us pass
this SCRUB Act so that we will have the opportunity to not only review,
but eliminate those regulations that are no longer necessary,
inefficient, and ineffective.
Members, I ask for you to oppose this motion and vote for the
underlying SCRUB Act and let us regain the authority that the people
have given us.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, the 5-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-
minute votes on the passage of the bill, if ordered; ordering the
previous question on House Resolution 156; and adoption of the
resolution, if ordered.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190,
noes 235, not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 113]

AYES--190

Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--235

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
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 (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack

[[Page H1419]]

Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--4

Capuano
Hudson
Pelosi
Scott, David

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.

{time} 1500

Messrs. COFFMAN, DesJARLAIS, and Mrs. COMSTOCK changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 240,
noes 185, not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 114]

AYES--240

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
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
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gottheimer
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
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
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
O'Halleran
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Rush
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Suozzi
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--185

Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Biggs
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
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gaetz
Gallego
Garamendi
Gohmert
Gonzalez (TX)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Massie
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--4

Hudson
Pelosi
Rogers (KY)
Scott, David

{time} 1507

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________