[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

     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.
     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

[[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.''

                          ____________________