Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 55 (Wednesday, March 29, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 29, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H2529-H2536]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1431, EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
REFORM ACT OF 2017

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 233 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 233

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1431) to
amend the Environmental Research, Development, and
Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to provide for
Scientific Advisory Board member qualifications, public
participation, and for other purposes. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions
in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology; and (2) one motion to
recommit.

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

General Leave

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the House Rules Committee met
and reported a rule, House Resolution 233, providing for consideration
of H.R. 1431, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017. This
legislation will reform the Environmental Protection Agency, or the
EPA, Science Advisory Board to ensure that it is unbiased and
transparent in performing its duties.
The SAB, the Science Advisory Board, was first established by
Congress in 1978 and plays a vital role in reviewing the scientific
foundation of EPA's regulatory decisions, while also providing critical
advice to us here in Congress as well as the Agency. The information it
reviews is used to justify important policy decisions at the EPA and
should be held to the highest standards because it is imperative that
the regulated community and the public can have confidence that EPA
decisions are grounded, that science should be both reproducible and
transparent.
However, shortcomings with the current process have arisen in recent
years, including limited public participation, EPA interference with
expert advice, potential conflicts of interest, and serious
deficiencies with the process to select the board members. Far too
often, the SAB's authority has been used by the EPA to silence
dissenting scientific views and opinions, rather than promoting the
impartiality and fairness that is the cornerstone of unbiased
scientific advice.

{time} 1230

At its inception, the SAB was intended to function independently in
order to provide candid advice and guidance to the EPA. Yet, if the
Agency undermines this autonomy, then the SAB's value to both the EPA
and Congress, I believe, is severely diminished.
Mr. Speaker, to address these issues, H.R. 1431 would reform the SAB
and reaffirm its independence so the public and regulated entities can
have that confidence that sound science is driving policy decisions at
the EPA.
The bill makes several important reforms to the SAB, such as
requiring board members to be qualified experts; disclosing conflicts
of interest and sources of bias; and ensuring that the views of
members, including the dissenting members, are available to the public.
It provides the public with the opportunity to participate in the
advisory activities of the board and gives people the ability to view
the agency's responses to issues raised by the SAB.
Additionally, the bill requires that at least 10 percent of the board
is comprised of State, local, and tribal experts; that board members do
not participate in advisory activities that involve reviews or
evaluations of their own work; and that EPA publicly disclose all board
member recusals; and that comments are published in the Federal
Register.
So these reforms will improve the existing regulatory process, while
also reinvigorating the scientific judgements that are often directly
linked to regulatory decisions.
The EPA relies on SAB reviews and studies to support new regulations,
new standards, assessments, and other Agency actions. A transparent and
accountable Science Advisory Board is critically important and can
assure the public that the data that Federal agencies rely on is
scientifically sound and unbiased.

[[Page H2530]]

This legislation would reinforce that the SAB process is a tool to
help policymakers with complex issues, while also preventing the EPA
from taking actions that impede the free flow of impartial scientific
advice.
Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of an important
measure that will improve the peer review process and ensure sound
science is used in the Federal rulemaking process. It is a simple,
relatively straightforward bill that will make the SAB more consistent,
transparent, and accountable to our bosses, the American people.
Transparency in regulations based on the highest quality science
should not be a partisan issue. In the 114th Congress, a nearly
identical version of this bill was passed by the House, I am glad to
say, with bipartisan support. I hope we can join together again to pass
this important bill with support from Members of both sides of the
aisle, from both parties.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule as well as the underlying
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse),
my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the
underlying legislation. This is the 23rd closed rule of this short, new
Congress. Both Democrats and Republicans have been denied the
opportunity to amend nearly 60 percent of the legislation that has been
brought to the floor through the House Rules Committee.
This effort by Speaker Ryan and the Republican leadership to halt a
fair and open debate in the people's House is outrageous. We are
supposed to be a deliberative body where both parties get to
deliberate. These Putinesque rules that shut down all debate need to
stop. This isn't the Kremlin.
You know, I think Representative Rooney, a Republican, said it best
last week: ``I've been in this job for 8 years, and I'm wracking my
brain to think of one thing our party has done that's been something
positive, that's been something other than stopping something else from
happening.''
Well, Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a piece of legislation
that seeks to prevent the EPA from protecting public health and the
environment--not exactly positive.
This bill was brought to the Rules Committee in an emergency meeting
last night. And let me emphasize that, an emergency meeting.
Mr. Speaker, I think the American people have a pretty good idea of
what is and what isn't an emergency. A tree falls on your house, that
is an emergency. Your rose bush needs pruning, not an emergency. Timmy
fell down a well, that is an emergency. Timmy might stub his toe, not
an emergency.
On April 28, the government will run out of money. That is an
emergency, even if it is self-inflicted by the Republicans. And we have
no shortage of other actual emergencies that we should be dealing with:
a devastating opioid epidemic, crumbling roads and bridges, mounting
evidence of Russian meddling in our election, and people being killed
every day due to gun violence, not to mention Flint, Michigan, is still
dealing with the residual health effects of toxically polluted water.
These are just a few examples of actual emergencies that Congress is
doing nothing to address. Instead, the underlying bill, the EPA Science
Advisory Board Reform Act, is brought to the Rules Committee and to the
House floor as an emergency piece of legislation.
As we learned last week, the American people are paying attention to
what we do here. They are smart enough to know what an emergency is.
And this bill isn't addressing an emergency, Mr. Speaker; it is
creating one.
The Science Advisory Board at the EPA provides a way for the Agency
to use sound, independent, and objective scientific data to help make
their decisions. Science, Mr. Speaker--you may have heard of it--is
kind of a big deal.
But this bill won't help the EPA to include more scientists in the
decisions. It will force them to include people with potential
financial conflicts of interest on the Science Advisory Board so long
as they disclose them. I mean, do we really want people on our advisory
boards if they could profit from a decision that they are about to
make? There is nothing scientific about corruption, and this is exactly
what this bill will open the door to.

This bill also limits the participation of scientific experts at the
EPA, leading to a disproportionate representation of big business and
corporate special interests. Are these really the people we want making
decisions about the health of our kids and the policies that should be
protecting our environment? Is that what we want?
So what is this bill really about? Well, it is about allowing the
Republicans' big corporate cronies a direct route to the decisionmakers
at the EPA. It is about disrupting the EPA's ability to fairly enforce
the rules, hold corporate polluters accountable, and protect our
health. It is about undermining scientific fact with political
cronyism.
Now, maybe things have changed lately. It has been a while since my
last science class. But I am pretty sure there is no step in the
scientific method that says consult corporate cronies. The truth is
that this Republican majority wants the EPA to base their decisions on
fiction, not fact.
Americans can't afford to have the EPA run by people who live in a
fantasyland where facts and science don't matter. Our environment and
the health of our families are too important.
This law is going to have real-life consequences. It undermines
science, hurts the environment, and it helps polluters. We need to
allow the EPA to make decisions based on fact. We need to ensure that
EPA is always free from financial conflicts, not making decisions based
on panels filled with industry insiders like the ones that this bill
would create.
Mr. Speaker, this bill defies logic. It defies reason. It defies
sanity. It will hurt the people who sent us here, and it will help
polluters. Republicans are putting corporate greed ahead of public
health, and the American people will be the ones who will suffer.
Americans deserve better. We should be fighting on behalf of the
American people.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell my Republican friends what I tell first
graders that I talk to back in my district in Massachusetts when I go
to visit their schools. I usually begin by telling them that science is
important. It is a big deal, and it is such a big deal that all our
schools teach it. And if you do your homework and if you study hard and
you pay attention, you might grow up someday to become a scientist, and
scientists are people who dedicate their lives to protecting the health
and well-being of people all over the world, and they dedicate their
lives to protecting our planet.
Scientists tell us things that are really important. They tell us
things like climate change is caused by greenhouse gasses, something my
Republican friends continually deny. They tell us that polluted air can
give children asthma. They tell us that lead in children's drinking
water causes learning problems. They tell us pesticide exposure can
cause cancer. These are important things.
We all learned in school, thanks to science, that the Earth orbits
around the Sun, that gravity causes this pen to fall when I drop it,
that plants turn sunshine into energy, that dinosaurs roamed the Earth
millions of years ago.
Mr. Speaker, the first graders I talk to, they get it. They
understand the importance of science. Unfortunately, many of my
colleagues in this Chamber do not. And I would bet that those first
graders understand the importance of making sure that it is scientists
who sit on scientific advisory boards and not corporate cronies.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the gentleman's comments. In fact, some of those
comments he was making I thought he was quoting me, or at least quoting
parts of my own speech.
Certainly, I agree that the decisions made by the Environmental
Protection Agency should be based on fact, not by industry insiders,
and that is exactly

[[Page H2531]]

what this legislation would do. I can't think of any instance where
asking for more full public participation as well as transparency is
not a positive step, and that is exactly what we are trying to do here.
In reference to the number of closed rules that we have had this
year, let me just remind the good gentleman that 15 out of the 23
closed rules were actually the Congressional Review Act, the CRAs that
we have been working on. They are prescribed to be a closed rule. That
is the nature of a CRA.
So I would think that, in the good gentleman's estimation of this
bill and all the negative things that could potentially come of it,
that we should be able to come to some bipartisan agreement on this,
especially considering the political climate that we are in today, the
occupant of the White House today, certainly in Republican hands, and I
would think our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle would be
very interested in ensuring an unbiased source of information that
comes from the SAB to give to the EPA in making their important
decisions. This, I would think, would be a good idea for both sides of
the aisle, no matter who is in the White House, and I would agree that
it is.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Weber), my good friend.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I do rise today in support of H.R.
1430, and I appreciate the primer that we were just given from the
other side on what an emergency is.
I would remind my good friend on the other side that, on November 8,
2016, the Americans stood up and said: We have an emergency. We need to
change directions. And they elected Donald Trump to be President to do
just that. So that is a good reminder.
Mr. Speaker, our constituents have a right to know whether or not EPA
regulations are based on sound science and if they benefit the American
people.
Keeping in the vein with what I just said, we have a better way.
Speaker Paul Ryan has put out his plan for A Better Way. Donald Trump
has been elected for that better way. The American people deserve a
better way.
This is called the HONEST Act, which I am proud to be a cosponsor of.
It is a better way. It is simple and straightforward. It is a message
to government bureaucrats they cannot propose costly new regulations
without providing sufficient transparency. As my good friend from
Washington said: Why would anybody be opposed to transparency and a
right for the American public to know?
Opponents of this bill apparently think Americans do not deserve to
know the truth, not to mention the ``science'' behind EPA burdensome
regulations.

{time} 1245

Trust me when I say Americans deserve the truth from the very start.
Mr. Speaker, EPA's regulatory agenda should not require secret
science, much less 30-year-old data, in order to sell it to the
American people. The other side likes to claim that there are a lot of
scientists behind this climate change theory, but they won't release
that data.
So what are they hiding behind?
By the way, I remember Mark Twain said that sometimes the majority
simply means that all the fools are on one side.
Mr. Speaker, it is long past time for Congress to increase the
transparency of the EPA. This HONEST Act will do exactly that by
prohibiting the EPA from proposing or finalizing regulations based upon
data that is either outdated, it is not transparent, nor is it publicly
available for review.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Smith for bringing this important
legislation to the floor today, and I thank the fine gentleman from
Washington State (Mr. Newhouse).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his speech, but it
was on a different bill than the one we are talking about right now.
That was a rule we debated yesterday. The rule passed, but we are going
to be talking about it today. So I was a little confused trying to
follow the gentleman.
I also want to remind the gentleman that he mentioned Donald Trump's
election. I will remind him that less than half of the people of the
United States actually voted for him. Hillary won the popular vote by
close to 3 million. The gentleman keeps on talking about a better way,
a better way, a better way.
Was that what was on display last week when we spent 15 hours in the
Rules Committee debating a repeal-and-replace bill on health care that
only 16 percent of the American people thought was worth it and that
had to be pulled because it was such a lousy process?
If that is the better way, I don't think people want anything to do
with it.
I would say to the gentleman, my colleague, Mr. Newhouse, who is
talking about trying to justify the closed process and saying that some
of these bills were CRAs, just repealing regulations, well, my friends
chose to bring up these repeal regulation bills under a very closed
process. Interestingly enough, these rules were made under a very open
process where agencies solicited input from stakeholders and from the
public, and it was all out in the open. But the Republicans chose to
bring measures to the floor to repeal regulations in such a way that
that agency can't even go back and revisit the same subject of that
particular regulation.
I think people need to understand this. I don't think I can ever
recall a more closed, authoritarian process than the one that we have
experienced under this leadership. This is not only something that I
know Democrats have a problem with; I know a lot of Republicans do,
too, because what this closed process means is that anybody with a good
idea can't bring it to the floor and can't have an opportunity to
debate the issue.
It was funny last night in the Rules Committee, my colleague from
Texas (Mr. Burgess) was kind of crowing about the fact that no
amendments were brought before the Rules Committee. I reminded him the
reason why no amendments were brought before the Rules Committee is
because this bill was noticed as an emergency and there was no call for
amendments. Members weren't asked to bring their ideas or their
amendments to the Rules Committee. This would be laughable if it
weren't so tragic. I would say to my colleagues that it is this same
closed process that brought us this disastrous health repeal bill that
my friends had to pull last week that is on display today. When you
have a lousy process, you end up with lousy legislation.
This is the people's House. We are supposed to deliberate, and here
is a radical idea: let us deliberate a little bit. Open it up. Open it
up a little bit. Let there be some amendments on both sides of the
aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question. If we defeat the previous question, I will bring to the floor
an amendment, which I am going to talk about right now because, Mr.
Speaker, we are deeply concerned by reports from our intelligence
community regarding Russian interference in last year's election and
even more troubled by FBI Director Comey's sworn testimony that the FBI
is now investigating the possibility of collusion between members of
President Trump's campaign team and Russia.
Mr. Speaker, the legitimacy of our electoral system is at stake, and
it is time that this Republican-controlled Congress does its job and
gets to the bottom of this. Unfortunately, recent actions by the House
Intelligence Committee chairman have left many Members from both sides
of the aisle convinced that the committee will not be able to conduct
an impartial investigation of this crucial matter of national security.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Swalwell's and
Representative Cummings' bill, which would create a bipartisan
commission to investigate Russian interference in our 2016 election.
For the life of me I don't know why this is controversial. My
colleagues on the Republican side should be just as interested in
getting to the truth and getting to the truth in a way that has
credibility with the American people as we on the Democratic side do.

[[Page H2532]]

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Farenthold). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend from
Massachusetts, and I also thank his able staff for the incredible work
they are doing.
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the bill before us, the EPA Science
Advisory Board, but also I want to talk about Mr. McGovern's amendment
on Russia.
They actually are linked because the last time a great power decided
to deny science-based policy and to actually dictate politically what
was science and what wasn't was Stalin's Soviet Russia. A famous
scientist named Lysenko turned out to be a fraud and a con artist. But
for 30 years, his thinking dominated Soviet science to the detriment of
the Soviet people. It actually led to a famine in Ukraine, killing
millions of people because he insisted on his political brand of
agricultural science, which wasn't science at all.
My friend from Massachusetts I think is wrong when he asks: What is
the emergency? I don't think he understands that, from the Republican
point of view, science mixed with public policy is an emergency. We
have to do something about it.
The world was created 4,273 years ago and carbon dating is a fraud.
As your coastal areas are under water, think about the comfort of
Republican philosophy: it is just a theory, and disputable at that. By
the way, let's defund any research on it. Let's back out of our
commitments. Let's be the only major nation in the world that denies
that climate change is real and is going to affect us in almost every
aspect of our lives moving forward, including our children and their
children.
We owe them better. That is the emergency. God forbid the
Environmental Protection Agency have policies and regulations that are
science-based. God forbid we look at empirical research to guide us in
making thoughtful policies to protect the public. God forbid we look at
the science of lead and other toxins in water supplies, let's save $7
million in Flint, Michigan. Just today they announced a $100 million
settlement. That anti-scientific decision, that political decision, put
the people of Flint, Michigan, at risk, and it is now going to cost
$100 million to fix.
That is the consequences of an anti-empirical philosophy, and that
will be the consequence of polluting this board with corporations and
corporate representatives who are guilty of polluting in the first
place. Of course, they won't welcome regulation of their own respective
industries, and the Republicans are their enablers. That is what is
going to happen if this bill passes.
With respect to Russia, each day there are more troubling revelations
that make clear that senior-level Trump officials had undisclosed
contact with Russian officials about the campaign, perhaps, the
transition, and about sanctions. National Security Adviser Michael
Flynn was fired after only 3 weeks on the job for lying about this very
thing to the Vice President of the United States. Attorney General Jeff
Sessions had to recuse himself from any Russian probe because of
compromised testimony at his nomination hearing. FBI Director James
Comey confirmed an investigation into the Trump campaign's possible
collusion with Russian officials.
What has been the most visible reaction from my friends on the other
side of the aisle in this Congress?
The frenetic behavior of the Intelligence Committee chairman that has
seemingly compromised the committee's ability to investigate.
This ought not to be about partisan politics. It ought to be about
restoring congressional independence and integrity, one of our most
cherished democratic institutions; in fact, the most cherished, a free
election without foreign interference.
So I support Mr. McGovern's potential amendment. I will also oppose
the previous question.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As we get back to the bill at hand, I think it is important that
there are a lot of important topics out there that people want to touch
on, and that is all well and good. Just like my friend from Texas, a
fine member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, brought up
other bills that are important and that relate to what we are talking
about here today, and I think that is important as well.
But I think I see an underlying theme here. We all agree on one
thing: we want the EPA to use science. We want public participation. We
want and we need transparency.
This is certainly a positive step in a bill, Mr. Speaker, that went
through regular order, that was introduced with bipartisan support,
that went through the markup process, and that was reported out without
amendments, something that this body in the last Congress passed, I
believe, in a bipartisan fashion.
Just to underscore the importance of taking this important step--and
let me underscore again--no matter which side of the aisle you are on,
it is important that we do this because of who you may think is the
right person or the wrong person occupying the White House, it is
important that the EPA has an unbiased source of information in order
for it to make its decisions.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a news release from the American
Chemistry Council.

[From the American Chemistry Council, March 9, 2017]

ACC Supports Legislative Efforts To Improve EPA Science

Washington.--The American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued
the following statement in support of the H.R. 1430, the
``Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017'' (or
The HONEST Act) introduced by Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) and
H.R. 1431 ``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017,''
introduced by Congressman Frank Lucus (R-OK).
``Consistency and transparency are key to the regulatory
certainty our industry needs to grow and create jobs. In some
instances, EPA has fallen short of employing the highest-
quality, best-available science in their regulatory decision
making.
``It is critical that the regulated community and the
public have confidence that decisions reached by EPA are
grounded in transparent and reproducible science. By ensuring
that the EPA utilizes high quality science and shares
underlying data used to reach decisions, the HONEST Act can
help foster a regulatory environment that will allow the U.S.
business of chemistry to continue to develop safe, innovative
products that Americans depend on in their everyday lives.
``The Science Advisory Board Reform Act would improve the
peer review process--a critical component of the scientific
process used by EPA in their regulatory decisions about
potential risks to human health or the environment. The Act
would make peer reviewers accountable for responding to
public comment, strengthen policies to address conflicts of
interest, ensure engagement of a wide range of perspectives
of qualified scientific experts in EPA's scientific peer
review panels and increase transparency in peer review
reports.
``We commend Chairman Smith and Congressman Lucas for their
leadership and commitment to advance these important
issues.''

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read an excerpt from the
American Chemistry Council letter:
``The Science Advisory Board Reform Act would improve the peer review
process--a critical component of the scientific process used by EPA in
their regulatory decisions about potential risks to human health or the
environment. The Act would make peer reviewers accountable for
responding to public comment, strengthen policies to address conflicts
of interest, ensure engagement of a wide range of perspectives of
qualified scientific experts in EPA's scientific peer review panels and
increase transparency in peer review reports.''
That is a strong statement.
I also include in the Record a letter from the American Farm Bureau
Federation.

American Farm

Bureau Federation,

Washington, DC, March 8, 2017.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Chair, House Committee on Science, Space and Technology,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Science, Space and
Technology, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson: Later this
week, the House

[[Page H2533]]

Science, Space and Technology Committee will consider
legislation to provide for Scientific Advisory Board (SAB)
member qualifications and public participation. The American
Farm Bureau strongly supports this legislation and pledges
our commitment to work with the committee in pressing for its
swift consideration.
This legislation is a priority because it reforms the SAB
process by strengthening public participation, improving the
process of selecting expert advisors, and expanding the
overall transparency of the SAB. While the SAB should be a
critical part of the scientific foundation of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulatory process,
EPA has systematically used its authority to silence
dissenting scientific experts. Rather than promote fairness,
transparency and independence to ensure unbiased scientific
advice, EPA routinely has ignored its own Peer Review
Handbook and silenced dissenting voices on expert panels.
This legislation seeks to reinforce the SAB process as a
tool that can help policymakers with complex issues while
preventing EPA from muzzling impartial scientific advice.
This legislation deserves strong, bipartisan support. We
applaud your leadership in this effort and will work with you
to ensure passage.
Sincerely,
Zippy Duvall,
President.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, the American Farm Bureau Federation
states:
``This legislation seeks to reinforce the SAB process as a tool that
can help policymakers with complex issues while preventing EPA from
muzzling impartial scientific advice. This legislation deserves strong,
bipartisan support. We applaud your leadership in this effort and will
work with you to ensure passage.''
These are two bipartisan groups looking out for the best interests of
the citizens of our great country, so I think they make strong
statements in support of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from the gentleman how many
more speakers he has?
Mr. NEWHOUSE. I think we have run to the end of our speakers.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let me first remind Members that we are asking for a
``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is
defeated, we will bring up an amendment that will allow the bill that
Representative Swalwell and Representative Cummings have introduced,
which would create a bipartisan commission to investigate Russian
interference in our 2016 election.
This is the appropriate place to do it because we are blocked in
every other way in terms of trying to bring this to the floor, and the
Rules Committee is a committee that prioritizes legislation that helps
set the agenda, so this ought to be part of it. This anti-science bill
can still be debated and voted on. It won't derail that, but it will
allow the House to be able to deliberate on this bill that would create
a bipartisan commission to investigate Russian interference in the 2016
election.

{time} 1300

This is a big deal. The American people deserve the truth. My
Republican colleagues ought to get out of the way and allow this
commission to be created so that the American people can actually have
some trust in a process that determines the extent to which the
Russians interfered in our election.
Again, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
With regard to the rule that we are debating today, I would again
remind everybody that this is a closed rule. There are some Members of
this House who have never seen an open rule, ever. I hope that changes
because I do think that, again, there ought to be more deliberation
here, there ought to be more back and forth. Even ideas that I strongly
disagree with on the Republican side, they ought to have the
opportunity to come here and be able to present them and we can vote up
or down on them.
I think we need to break this pattern of shutting the process down.
It is what resulted in the debacle last week with your horrible
healthcare bill, the one that only 16 percent of the American people
supported. It is pretty hard to get that low, but my friends managed to
be able to set a new record on unpopular legislation--so bad that it
had to be withdrawn from the floor for consideration.
I would argue it is the closed, authoritarian-like process that
produced a lousy bill. If my friends continue to adhere to this closed
process, they are going to get more lousy pieces of legislation that
are going to do great harm to the American people brought to this
floor.
This bill that is before us today, again, has been brought to the
floor under this expedited procedure called an emergency provision. It
is just being rushed to the floor as an emergency.
This is not an emergency. The opioid crisis is an emergency; the
crisis in Flint, Michigan, is an emergency; our crumbling
infrastructure is an emergency. There are deficient bridges and roads
in every one of our congressional districts. That is an emergency. We
need to address that.
Keeping the government open is an emergency. But to say this is an
emergency is kind of ridiculous. It is not an emergency. It is kind of
like our house is on fire and you are saying: I will get out the hose
later, but I need to wash the dishes first.
That is how this kind of fits into what we are doing here today. This
doesn't qualify for that.
On the substance of the bill, we have this radical idea that
scientists ought to sit on scientific advisory committees, not
corporate cronies, not people who are interested in covering up for
polluters or doing their bidding. We think experts and scientists ought
to sit on scientific advisory boards. That is the radical idea that we
have. This bill, unfortunately, undermines that.
What this bill does is threaten public health by stacking advisory
boards with industry representatives, and it weakens scientific review.
It is that simple. I don't care what your political ideology is, I
don't think you want that.
Let me just mention some of the groups that are opposed to this:
The Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, American Geophysical
Union, and the American Lung Association strongly oppose this bill. The
American Public Health Association, the American Thoracic Society, and
the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America oppose this bill. Clean
Water Action opposes this bill. Earthjustice, the Environmental Defense
Action Fund, Health Care Without Harm, League of Conservation Voters,
and the National Medical Association oppose this bill. The Natural
Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and
Union of Concerned Scientists all oppose this bill. The Food Policy
Action opposes this bill.
I can go on and on. Every organization that is an advocate for the
health and well-being of the American people oppose this bill. We are
bringing it up for an up-or-down vote, no amendments, a closed rule,
and here we are.
I would just say, Mr. Speaker, again, this is a bad idea. I guess if
you are an ally of big corporations or of corporations that engage in
pollution, this is a good idea. But if you are interested in protecting
the health and well-being of the American people, and the globe, for
that matter, this is a bad idea.
As I began, I mentioned that when I speak to first-graders, they
understand the importance of science. They get it. They want us to be
good stewards of the environment. They want us to protect this planet.
They understand the importance of science.
But I am always amazed how many people in this Chamber just don't get
it. I find that really sad. I want to give my kids, and someday my
grandkids and great grandkids, a future where we respect the
environment. When we pass bills like this, it makes that less certain.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues again to vote ``no'' on the
previous question and, please, in a bipartisan way, reject this lousy
piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
This bill is a good idea, and I think the debate that we have had
here today underscores the importance of this as we consider this under
the rule.
H.R. 1431 addresses problems that have arisen over the years with the
Science Advisory Board, and actually would return the Board to its
intended purpose--something maybe the gentleman does not agree with--to
provide independent expert advice on scientific and technical
information.
By modernizing the policies and the procedures of the governing of
the SAB, Congress, with this bill, can take

[[Page H2534]]

critical steps to make sure that the SAB is best equipped to provide
that independent, transparent, balanced review and the analyses of the
science used that guides the EPA's regulatory decisions.
One key issue that this measure would address is the importance of
having regulations that are supported by science and that are
reproducible and accessible for peer review, not antiscience, like some
people have said. Quite the opposite. We want science. We want good
science.

The scientific method demands that the result of scientific studies
be capable of replication. This is all the more critical when the
information is used to develop and set public policy, which is why the
methods and the data used by the EPA and the SAB must be publicly
available for purposes of replication and verification. If you don't
want public transparency, I guess you should vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, opponents of the legislation have argued that it makes
unnecessary and unproductive changes to the SAB, that it would restrict
the ability of scientists to engage on the issues they specialize in,
creates new burdens through the public comment and transparency
provisions, and weakens the ability of the EPA to use the best
available science and data to support its rules and regulations.
I believe that these arguments fail to recognize what this bill
actually does accomplish. They seem to ignore the importance of
reforming the Federal rulemaking process in a way that ensures sound
science is the bedrock on which Federal rules and regulations are
built--sound science; is that a radical idea--and that these are not
predetermined political agendas.
Unfortunately, the EPA has diluted the Board's credibility by
systematically silencing dissenting opinions, ignoring calls for
balanced participation, and preventing the Board from responding to
congressional reports. Fully 10 percent of the seats on the Board will
be filled by State, local, and tribal representatives, improving the
balance of that participation.
H.R. 1431 simply encourages greater transparency, debate, and public
participation in the Board, which will result in better decisionmaking
at the EPA. I think that is something everyone should be able to agree
on. I don't think public participation is a burden, but, rather, a
benefit that improves the relationship and the interaction between
Federal regulators and the public.
By strengthening public participation, improving the process for
selecting expert advisers, and expanding transparency requirements,
this legislation takes critical steps that will improve our regulatory
system, while also ensuring that the most qualified and the most
capable scientists are free to undertake a balanced and open review of
regulatory science.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to update the law. It is time to restore
independence to the Science Advisory Board. It is time to strengthen
scientific integrity. Science is an invaluable tool that helps
policymakers navigate complex issues, yet this resource has been
severely diminished if the EPA interferes with expert advice, limits
public participation, and fails to disclose potential conflicts of
interest.
As President Reagan said in guidance to the EPA: ``The purpose of the
Science Advisory Board is to apply the universally accepted principles
of scientific peer review to the research conclusions that will form
the basis for EPA regulations, a function that must remain above
interest group politics.''
Mr. Speaker, I believe H.R. 1431 gets to the heart of President
Reagan's point. Greater debate, unbiased scientific advice and
independent peer-reviews, and public participation will only result in
better decisionmaking at the Federal level. I believe that this is the
goal we all share, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this
rule, as well as the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 233 Offered by Mr. McGovern

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. 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. 3. 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
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. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.

[[Page H2535]]

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232,
nays 191, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 203]

YEAS--232

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
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
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
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 (IA)
Zeldin

NAYS--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
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.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
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
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--6

Duffy
Marino
Meeks
Rush
Slaughter
Young (AK)

{time} 1336

Mr. O'HALLERAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232,
noes 188, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 204]

AYES--232

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
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Ellison
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
Hudson
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
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
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 (IA)
Zeldin

NOES--188

[[Page H2536]]

Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
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
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--9

Curbelo (FL)
Duffy
LaMalfa
Marino
Meeks
Quigley
Rush
Slaughter
Young (AK)

{time} 1343

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.
Stated against:
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall Vote No. 204 on H. Res.
233, the rule for H.R. 1431, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yea''
when I should have voted ``nay.''

____________________