Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 71 (Wednesday, April 26, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 26, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H2860-H2868]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1695, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS
SELECTION AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 275 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 275

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1695) to amend title 17, United States Code,
to provide additional responsibilities for the Register of
Copyrights, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now
printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-13. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against that amendment in the
nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order
except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. House Resolution 254 is laid on the table.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.

[[Page H2861]]

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous materials on House Resolution 275, currently under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to bring
forward this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides
for consideration of H.R. 1695, the Register of Copyrights Selection
and Accountability Act of 2017.
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the
chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. The rule also
provides for a motion to recommit and makes in order amendments by
Representatives Deutch and Chu.
Yesterday, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from
Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Ranking Member John
Conyers. Their testimony reflected the strong bipartisan support for
this legislation and the work both Members have invested in moving it
forward.
I personally thank Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and
the Judiciary Committee staff on both the majority and minority side
for their work on this legislation.
As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I had the opportunity to
participate in the committee markup where we debated numerous
amendments and enjoyed a thorough discussion of this bill. The
Judiciary Committee ultimately adopted an amendment by my colleague
from Texas, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, to strengthen the bill. H.R.
1695 passed the Judiciary Committee in a show of overwhelming
bipartisan support by a vote of 27-1.
The Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act is
supported by numerous outside groups, including the American
Conservative Union, SAG-AFTRA, the AFL-CIO, the Council for Citizens
Against Government Waste, CreativeFuture, the Motion Picture
Association of America, the Gospel Music Association, the American
Chemical Society, the Church Music Publishers Association, Oracle, and
many, many others. These groups represent only a sampling of the broad
support behind this bill.
Mr. Speaker, as you can tell, H.R. 1695 has brought together many
groups of people who don't traditionally have similar interests. From
creators to labor organizations to conservative groups, the diversity
of support behind this legislation speaks to its significance in the
copyright industry and to our economy as a whole.
H.R. 1695 also enjoys the public support of our two former Registers
of Copyright, individuals who filled the very position this bill seeks
to address. Former Registers Marybeth Peters and Ralph Oman have both
made clear their belief in the importance of an ``independent copyright
advice straight and true from the expert agency'' to Congress.
These former Registers correctly point out that this bill addresses a
``structural, not personal or political'' issue between the Library of
Congress and the Copyright Office. Despite what some may say, this is
what the bill simply does.
H.R. 1695 is a necessary first step toward any larger efforts toward
modernizing the Copyright Office. It helps ensure that the Register can
implement policy and advise Congress effectively, and this legislation
will ultimately help strengthen our copyright system. This is
particularly relevant today, as today is World Intellectual Property
Day.
As I discussed earlier today in this Chamber, the importance of
strong IP protections, including a strong copyright system, is clearer
than ever. In fact, the copyright system in our country is so critical
that our Nation's Founders sought to recognize it in the Constitution.
Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the
power ``to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing
for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries.''
While robust intellectual property protections have always been a
foundational principle of our Nation, today such protections are also a
major economic driver creating and fueling the American Dream. In fact,
core copyright industries in the United States are now responsible for
$1.2 trillion in GDP, representing nearly 7 percent of our economy and
employing more than 5.5 million people. In my home State of Georgia
alone, more than 19,000 copyrights are registered annually to State
residents.
Yet the head of the Copyright Office, which oversees such a massive
sector of our economy, is unilaterally selected by the Librarian of
Congress. This is the case, despite the fact that the Copyright Office
is statutorily designed as Congress' adviser and the massive role that
copyright plays in our economy and our society.
I want to be clear. I think the role of the Library is a critical
one, and the Librarian performs many important duties. Historically,
however, the Librarian has not been an expert in copyright and isn't
expected to be, Mr. Speaker.
Does it make sense, then, to make the Librarian--any Librarian--to be
solely responsible for the selection of the person responsible for
overseeing the Nation's copyright policy? I don't think it does. In
fact, the current selection is more an accident of history than an
example of carefully conceived policy.
By way of historical background, in 1870, the Library of Congress
believed it would make sense for copyrighted works to be placed in the
Library as a means to grow the collection. While this made sense at
that point in history and while the collections are still an important
function of the Library, this provision neither requires nor justifies
the role of the Register of Copyrights to be subordinate to the
Librarian.

Today, with the major role that the Copyright Office plays in our
culture and our economy, we can no longer justify the head of the
Copyright Office--and Congress' designated expert adviser--being hired
under the umbrella of the Library of Congress. Currently, the Register
is hired according to the same unilateral process as much more junior
positions are filled. Under today's system, the Register can serve for
an unlimited duration without review or removal, despite the importance
of this position.
And finally, the Register is not Presidentially appointed, and there
have been questions in the courts regarding the authority of the
Copyright Office to conduct rulemaking.
We need a copyright system for the 21st century. We need a system
that will take us into the future by protecting and promoting
innovation. Copyright is the foundation of innovation, and innovation
is the force that drives our economy. A strong copyright system allows
the millions of kids and young adults throughout our 50 States to make
their dreams a reality, to build a career out of what they produce in
their minds and imaginations. Today's rule provides for an underlying
bill that will help ensure that our copyright system is equipped to
rise to the challenges of the future and to support Americans as they
strive to make their hopes, dreams, and ambitions into reality.
The underlying bill promotes American innovation by recognizing the
importance of the Register of Copyrights position. This bill would
create a selection committee composed by bipartisan, bicameral
congressional leadership and the Librarian of Congress to recommend
candidates to the President for nomination. The bill would establish a
Senate confirmation process for the position and establish a 10-year
term for the Register of Copyrights position.
This legislation represents the product of more than 4 years of
bipartisan collaboration. It reflects the consensus view that the
Copyright Office is better positioned to serve the public if the
Register is no longer treated like a subordinate official within the
Library, but as the seat of expertise and property protection that it
is, regardless of

[[Page H2862]]

who the Librarian or who the President may be.
To reiterate, this issue has been under discussion since before
anyone knew the former Librarian would be leaving or a new Librarian
would be taking over.

{time} 1245

When these discussions began, there was a Democrat in the White
House, and it was clear that our next President would be, possibly, a
Democrat as well. Yet both Republicans and Democrats have supported the
reality that undergirds this bill, and we have supported what is good
for American innovation and our creators and our dreamers, rather than
worry about what specific President may make the next appointment to
this Office.
The legislation is the first step in the Judiciary Committee's work
to modernize the Copyright Office, which is now needed more than ever.
As the vice-chair of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee, I will
continue to push that effort forward, to look at ways to promote better
infrastructure and technology at the Copyright Office, and to work to
update our music licensing laws.
H.R. 1695 is the beginning, rather than the end, and our commitment
to copyright modernization and the support of these ideas underpinning
it continue to receive broad support.
The rule provides for a bill that is, simply put, good policy. The
opportunity before us is not about one individual but establishing the
right process for selecting the Copyright Register and future
Registers. The bill would increase accountability within the Copyright
Office and take the first steps toward making sure our Copyright Office
works for this century.
Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that I thank the chairman of the
full Judiciary Committee, Bob Goodlatte, and the ranking member, John
Conyers, for their hard work on this; and also a special commendation
to Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, who sponsored an amendment that
actually strengthened this bill and provided a process moving forward
that will help and, I think, bring all parties some semblance of
structure and form as we move forward in this process, a beginning, as
I said, the first step in a modernization of our Copyright Office.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to begin by wishing my colleague from Georgia a happy
International Copyright Day, right up there with Thanksgiving and
Christmas as great American holidays.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying
bill. Look, first of all, 60 hours; we have less than 60 hours before
the Federal Government of the United States will shut down, and here we
are filling time with a bill. Of course, the concept deserves to be
debated and fleshed out, but is it really what we should be talking
about when we are 60 hours away from the shutdown of our Federal
Government?
Now, it feels like we have been here before. Now, sometimes it is
because, unfortunately, we have been brought to the brink of economic
disaster, just as Republicans seem to do every time government funding
or the debt ceiling is about to expire. We know it has happened before.
We know it will happen again.
Maybe it is time for a short-term CR; maybe it is an omnibus, but,
look, that is what we should be doing right now. There will be plenty
of time, plenty of time to figure out the intricacies of copyright and
the oversight of the Office after we make sure that the basic functions
of government are able to continue after 60 hours.
And even if we do keep the government open, all we are doing is
kicking the can down the road and not allowing American businesses or
individuals to plan for the future.
Can you imagine if your family didn't know if you would have a job or
what salary it would be at every few months?
Now, look, congressional salaries, they are exempt from government
shutdowns, of course. If they weren't, perhaps we would be discussing
the government shutdown with 60 hours to go until other Federal workers
are prevented from coming to work.
Even at this moment, we don't have a full-year appropriations bill.
We have a continuing resolution that expires midnight on Friday. Those
are the priority issues that the American people want us to focus on.
When we deal with what is urgent, that will allow us the time and the
space for thoughtful consideration of Copyright Office oversight.
We need to get past this bitter partisanship and this brinksmanship.
Even the rule we are considering today is problematic and partisan,
which is why I am in staunch opposition. It doesn't allow all the
amendments to come to the floor, including one from my colleague, Ms.
Lofgren, that I tried to amend the rule to allow, and it was turned
down in Rules Committee by a partisan vote.
We don't have an open rule, as Speaker Ryan promised to provide as we
got back to what was called regular order, allowing our Democratic and
Republican colleagues to improve and enhance bills, offer their ideas
up for consideration. If a majority adopt them, they can be included in
the overall bill.
Instead, we are considering a rule that effectively stops debate on
important amendments that were omitted and brings forward a politically
motivated bill about the head of the Copyright Office.
Simply put, this bill would take the authority of hiring and firing
the Copyright Register, who is the head of the Copyright Office, from
the Librarian of Congress, and give it to the President, with Senate
approval. It effectively politicizes the Office of the head of the
Copyright Office.
Now, it sounds innocuous, but what it means is that special interests
will be involved with picking the person to make decisions over who
receives a copyright. Yet, again, through this bill, Congress is
choosing the big, powerful interests over the consumers, over
innovation, and over the little guy.
As the Electronic Frontier Foundation said: this bill is ``designed
to . . . allow powerful incumbent interests to use their lobbying power
to control this increasingly politicized Office. And while the
Librarian of Congress still oversees the Copyright Office, the
Librarian of Congress would not be able to remove the Register no
matter how poorly they perform their job.''
Under this bill, the position of Register of Copyrights will be yet
another political position and will, frankly, stall one of the great
projects they are embarking on, the modernization effort that is
desperately needed at the Copyright Office. The last thing we need is
political cronyism in the Copyright Office.

Let's talk a little bit about the history of the position of the head
of the Copyright Office. Most of the first century of America, U.S.
District Court clerks processed copyright applications themselves. Now,
that was obviously inefficient to foist on the judicial branch, and, in
1870, Congress centralized the power of copyrights at the Library of
Congress. Seven years later, the Copyright Office was created as a
separate department within the Library, and the Register of Copyrights
was established as the head of that Office.
Why depart from history so radically now? Why give in to increasing
executive authority in a time when many of us are concerned about the
growing powers of the Presidency? Frankly, some of this seems to be
about the personal dislike of the Librarian, Dr. Carla Hayden, or the
general situation with the most recent Register who departed last
October, Maria Pallante.
It appears that some believe that Dr. Hayden should not have
reassigned Ms. Pallante, so there is a micromanaging of particular
personnel issues, but an inspector general's report stated that Ms.
Pallante was clearly deficient in her duties, especially around those
of modernization of the Office.
As just one example, the inspector general discovered that the
Copyright Office wasted 6 years and nearly $12 million attempting to
implement an Electronic Licensing System. Based on the IG report, it
would seem that the Librarian had a valid reason to reassign the
Copyright Register last October, and she definitely had every right to
do so, as the head of the Library. The last thing we want is
politically motivated decisionmaking in a personnel process around
performance at the Library of Congress.

[[Page H2863]]

Since the Librarian of Congress, Dr. Carla Hayden, was appointed in
2015, she has been pulling the Library of Congress and the Copyright
Office into the 21st century. And if we move the appointment into the
hands of the President, we are taking away the ability for the
Librarian to supervise the Office of Copyright and continue to do this
work. We are going to stop progress dead in its tracks.
With hundreds of Presidential appointees who haven't even been
nominated, no less approved, and the glacial pace of Congress, it could
be years before a Librarian is confirmed under this new scheme.
Look, we all understand and agree that there are problems that we
need to work on together with regard to the copyright process to bring
it into the 21st century. Again, with 60 hours away from a government
shutdown, now might be a time to focus on keeping government open and
perhaps having a more thoughtful debate, removing the passions around
the personnel involved after we continue to keep government open.
This bill, unfortunately, does not solve the problems with
copyrights. It makes the situation worse because it slows down a
desperately needed modernization indefinitely and would hurt the public
and consumers.
The last thing we need is a more autonomous Copyright Office. After
the obscene wasting of taxpayer dollars, do we really want to provide
for more politically motivated decisionmaking within the Office of the
Copyright? I think the answer is no; that is why I oppose the rule. I
oppose the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I will have more time to discuss
especially the IG report and what it may say here in just a moment. I
yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn),
another strong advocate in our protections of copyright and others in
this intellectual property debate.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1695, the
Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act.
I am an original cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation. It was
introduced by Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers, making
this Register of Copyrights a position nominated by the President and
confirmed by the Senate. It was passed out of the House Judiciary
Committee by a vote of 27-1. It is completely appropriate that we bring
this provision to the floor.
As a co-chair of the Congressional Songwriters Caucus, and a
Representative of middle Tennessee, which is the Nashville area, it is
home to many content producers and creators, in particular, to
songwriters. Creators deserve to know that they will have a Register
who will do a couple of things really well: is accountable to the
people through their elected Representatives, and will provide
independent and expert advice to Congress.
According to a report prepared by the International Intellectual
Property Alliance: the total copyright industries employed nearly 11.4
million workers in 2015, accounting for 7.95 percent of all U.S.
employment, 9.39 percent of all private employment in the U.S. The
average annual compensation paid to employees of the total copyright
industries in 2015, per employee, $82,117, exceeds the average annual
wage by about 21 percent.
Intellectual property must be protected. Copyrights must be
protected. Congress has a role in making certain that these
constitutional provisions are held and, also, making certain that the
Office is responsible to Congress. I urge the House to move forward on
this commonsense measure.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren), the distinguished ranking member on the
Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that should be opposed, and
I agree with Mr. Polis that it is unfortunate it is being rushed
because this may be one of the more significant votes we will take
about our economy in this Congress.
I have heard a lot of rhetoric that this isn't about the Librarian. I
am sorry, it is about the Librarian. Dr. Carla Hayden is probably the
most qualified Librarian of Congress who has ever served. She has done
more in the last 6 months to advance modernization in the Library and
the Copyright Office than her predecessor did in the prior 2 decades.
If we prevent her from appointing a new Register, that effort will be
stalled, and I think that would be tragic.

It has been mentioned that somehow, by making this a political
position, it would be more accountable. I beg to differ. Mr. Polis has
mentioned the view of the Electronic Frontier Foundation that this
would enhance special interests. What they have actually said, and I
think it is very pertinent, is that the bill would allow powerful
incumbent interests to use their lobbying power to control this
increasingly politicized Office.
No President is going to select an appointee who will be shot down by
the special interests. That is quite different than the Librarian who
removed the prior Register because of, I believe, the inspector
general's scathing report about the failure to computerize that office,
essentially wasting $12 million, while misrepresenting that fact to the
Librarian and to Congress.
The national library groups, including the national Copyright
Alliance, the American Library Association, and the like, say this:

It's difficult to understand how the public or Congress
itself would benefit from politicization of the Register of
Copyrights' position by making it subject to Presidential
appointment and Senate confirmation as this legislation
proposes. Such politicization of the position necessarily
would result in a Register more actively engaged in policy
development than in competent management and modernization.

That is what we want out of a Register. We don't want a partisan for
one side of the issue. We want somebody who can run, in an efficient
way, the Copyright Office.
Now, a word about the amendment that has been bandied about as
somehow giving Congress a greater say. I value the friendship of my
colleague, Sheila Jackson Lee, who I have served with for so long, but
I fear her amendment does not accomplish what she said because the
President's power to appoint is limited only by Senate confirmation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman from California an additional 30
seconds.
Ms. LOFGREN. It is limited only by Senate confirmation. It cannot be
limited by a list prepared by Congress.

{time} 1300

I would just say, finally, that if there is a conflict of interest,
as has been suggested, the Librarian cares only about the public
interests. It is Donald Trump who has the 30 copyrights, and I don't
think we should ask President Trump to take this position with that
conflict of interest, something that all of us have been concerned
about.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, again, this is about policy. This is about moving
forward in the modernization process. I believe that Ms. Hayden is
fully qualified to be Librarian of Congress. I think the issue comes in
the Copyright Register's Office, not the Librarian herself.
There are some issues also. It has been interesting because I have
been involved in this now my whole time in Congress, and this issue of
copyright protection and intellectual property, I have to say
Electronic Frontier Foundation are good folks, but we disagree, many of
us in the content community and also the intellectual property, with
the views of a more open or less inhibited copyright protection, which
we believe is the very heartbeat of the innovative system. It is
protecting the copyright as we go forward.
So just simply to have somebody saying that they are looking out for
the big guy, I am looking out for the single songwriter. I'm looking
out for the person right now in their home pecking out their first
novel, working on their first articles. These are the kinds of things
that need protecting. This is the little guy we are talking about. This
is making this modernization happen, and we are going to continue to
move forward.
We have differences of opinion. That is fine. But I think in looking
at this

[[Page H2864]]

big picture, we are talking about a Register's Office that has so much
work in our economy as a whole, we are just simply looking toward the
first step of modernization.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. DelBene.)
Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the
underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to take a step back
and consider the unintended consequences of this legislation.
As a former member of the Judiciary Committee, I had the opportunity
to hear firsthand from a very diverse range of stakeholders on their
experiences in dealing with the Copyright Office, and one of the most
common refrains I heard was the dire need for modernizing the Office
and updating their IT systems to be more user-friendly. So I was very
disturbed to learn recently that 6 years and nearly $12 million were
wasted on yet another failed government IT project, this time at the
Copyright Office. This waste of taxpayer dollars is unacceptable, and
any legislation to reform the Office ought to have successful
modernization as its primary goal. This legislation fails that test.
H.R. 1695 sets back the clock on considerable progress that has been
made already under the leadership of the new Librarian of Congress, Dr.
Carla Hayden. The bill puts the power to appoint the head of the
Copyright Office in the hands of a President who, as of February, still
had around 2,000 appointments sitting empty. This kind of delay will
set back the Office when it is finally on the right track.
And to what end?
It seems that this bill is just another solution in search of a
problem.
A vote for this bill is a vote to stop progress, a vote to continue
to waste tax dollars, and a vote to add one more person to the list of
positions that President Trump seems to have no interest in filling. I
am very concerned that this is a misguided experiment without a clear
purpose and that taxpayers will be the ones who foot the bill when it
doesn't succeed.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who is the ranking member on the
Subcommittee of Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet on the
Judiciary Committee.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the underlying legislation, which I
view as a great step forward.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard about the misdeeds alleged of the prior
Register of Copyrights, and we have heard what a wonderful Librarian
Carla Hayden is; and I agree, she is a wonderful Librarian. But this
bill is not about individuals. It is not about whether the last
Register was a good or bad Register. It is not about whether she knew
what she was doing on modernization or not. This bill is an
institutional bill. This bill is against politicizing. This bill is for
strengthening and enhancing the stature of the Office of Register of
Copyrights.
The committee held 4 years of hearings on the Copyright Act. There
are many contentious issues that we will be bringing to the floor over
the next couple of years on that. This was not one of them. This issue
had broad support.
Everybody agrees that the Office of Copyright must be modernized.
What this bill does is to take it and give it a little more
independence from the Library of Congress. The Librarian of Congress is
an interested stakeholder. There are many stakeholders in Copyright.
Librarians are stakeholders, tech people are stakeholders, content
creators, movie studios, authors, and editors--there are lots of
different stakeholders. No stakeholder should be in a controlling
position.
The Librarian of Congress is in a controlling position, and there is
a consensus that that ought to be reduced. I, personally, and a lot of
other people think the Register's Office should be taken out of the
Library entirely. But this bill is a compromise. It doesn't do that. It
simply enhances the stature of the Copyright Office by making this a
Presidentially appointed office for a 10-year term.

You talk about politicizing? Right now, President Trump could, if he
wished, fire the Librarian tomorrow. The Librarian serves at his
pleasure, and the Register of Copyrights serves at her pleasure. So the
President totally controls the Librarian of Congress and the Register
at any time.
This bill would say that the President, with the advice and consent
of the Senate, would appoint the Register who would have a 10-year
term. That gives her or him more independence, obviously, and it
enables them to undertake the proper modernization.
One of the problems we saw was that the modernization requirements of
the Library of Congress are very different from the modernization
requirements of the Copyright Office, and one seemed to take precedence
over the other, which is not surprising when one is subject to the
other and part of it.
So this bill would increase the stature of the Copyright Office. It
would make it less political by giving the incumbent a 10-year tenure
during good behavior. There are powerful interests who have an
interest, and they would be one step further removed because of the 10-
year tenure.
This is a bill that has broad bipartisan support. Almost every
interest group that deals with the Copyright Office is in favor of
this, from the authors to the directors, to the songwriters, to the
motion picture people, you name it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, but I am opposed to the
rule.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, thank goodness, hopefully, we
will get this rule passed and we will get to this bill so the gentleman
can be in support of it, that is as we move forward.
Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today President Trump plans to unveil a tax cut proposal
that would vastly reduce the business tax rate for international
corporations and even for his own real estate empire. We have no way of
knowing how many millions he personally might save through this so-
called Trump loophole--no idea--unless he releases his tax returns.
Democrats have been calling on the President to release his tax returns
for this reason and so many others. We cannot allow the White House to
be used as a tool to enrich the President and his family.
Up until now, every President since Gerald Ford has disclosed his tax
return information. These returns have provided a basic level of
transparency to help to ensure the public's interest is placed first.
The American people deserve the same level of disclosure from this
administration. If they continue to refuse to provide it, then we, as
the people's elected Representatives, should hold the executive branch
accountable.
If not us, who?
Mr. Speaker, when we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Eshoo's bill, which
would require Presidents and major party nominees for the Presidency to
simply release their tax returns.
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. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our excellent proposal, I yield 4
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado for his
leadership and for yielding me time.
Here I am again. I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying
bill, and I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that
my bipartisan--this is both Republicans and Democrats--this bipartisan
legislation, the Presidential Tax Transparency Act, can be made in
order for debate and a vote.
The Presidential Tax Transparency Act is very simple. It would
require this President, all future Presidents,

[[Page H2865]]

and Presidential nominees from both major parties to publicly disclose
their tax returns. Until recently, most Americans thought this
disclosure was required by law, but it actually has been a tradition.
It has been a voluntary disclosure by every President of both parties
since Watergate.
This long disclosure tradition exists because, A, the American people
demand a baseline level of transparency from the highest officeholder
in the land, and each one of the Presidents wanted the American people
to know that their first and top priority was the American people's
interest and not their own financial interests. This last Saturday,
April 15, thousands of Americans in 125 cities across the country
participated in tax marches calling for the President to release his
tax returns.
Now, why did they do this on holy Saturday?
Because they care and they are deeply concerned about the President's
conflicts of interests and his foreign business entanglements.
The President's refusal to release his tax returns is just one
example of his administration's historic lack of transparency as we
near the 100-day mark of the administration. As questions about his
associates' ties to Russia continue to swirl, yesterday, the White
House refused to provide information about General Flynn's Russia
contacts to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Just
before the Easter holiday, the White House also announced that it will
break with precedent and will not make its visitor logs public. This is
added to the fact that the President's meetings and golf outings at his
properties in Florida, New Jersey, and elsewhere--where he has so far
spent one-third of his Presidency, according to The Washington Post--
are also off the books.
Who is the President meeting with? Who does he listen to? Do his
personal financial interests come first, or do the interests of the
country come first?

The President's business empire makes him more susceptible to
conflicts of interest than any President in our history, yet he has
done less to address these conflicts than any President in modern
history. Since 1978, every President has placed their assets in a real
blind trust. Instead of following this tradition, the President has
turned his business over to his sons in an arrangement that the
nonpartisan Office of Government Ethics called ``meaningless from a
conflict of interest perspective.'' It was later revealed that the
President can draw profits from this trust at any time, and his son
acknowledged that he will provide his father with periodic reports
about the state of his family's businesses.
This is not right. This simply does not pass muster for anyone in the
country. This is not Republican or Democratic. This is not partisan.
The President should release his tax returns.
Now, as the gentleman said previously, this is, again, critically
important because it is reported that the President is going to come
out with a tax plan today and reportedly cut the tax rate on pass-
through entities.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from California.
Ms. ESHOO. For all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, and all of these
conflicts of interest, it is why the President needs to reveal his tax
returns, it is why we have bipartisan legislation.
We should defeat the previous question and sign on to the discharge
petition so that this bipartisan legislation can come before the full
House to ensure that the President provides transparency to the
American people now and in the future.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
What I really think this bill is about is President Trump wanting to
put a Big Business friend in charge of an office that can do personal
favors for him and his family. We know that the President and his
family have, or are seeking, dozens of copyrights. Here is a great
one--here is a copyright on his book, ``Trump: The Best Golf Advice I
Ever Received.'' Now, don't get me wrong, he probably deserved a
copyright. I am sure a ghostwriter wrote it for him and he had a strong
contract with that ghostwriter. Since it seems that all the President
spends his weekends and our taxpayer dollars doing is golf, the last
thing we want is want him to put one of his golfing buddies in charge
of the Copyright Office.
Who is to say the next copyright application from Donald Trump won't
be disputed?
Placing his friends, business associates, and, yes, golfing partners
in high places could help tip the scales in his favor, providing
profits for him and his family at the expense of the American people.
I would like to take a moment to speak to a few of the defenses I
have heard about the need for this bill. There is the one stating the
President would pick the Register from a list of experts provided by a
group, including the Librarian.
But guess what?
That list is nonbinding, so the President can easily ignore the
recommendations and do whatever he wants, which is what this President
usually does anyway.

{time} 1315

I have also heard the argument that the Register will be more
accountable and somehow transparent as a Presidential appointee.
Hogwash. That is the opposite of the truth. There is as much
transparency for a non-Presidential appointee once in their position;
and it is much less likely that a President is going to demand the
resignation of the Register than the Librarian is going to reassign
them, as the Librarian did last year when the Register was failing, as
confirmed by the inspector general report.
Finally, there seems to be the argument that there were a large
number of hearings in the committee on this issue and that somehow this
is the work product of those hearings. Well, if you look at the record,
there was not one hearing on this bill. There were hearings about
general copyright reform. There was no hearing on how this bill might
have a devastating impact on the need to modernize the Copyright
Office, creating huge delays for important efforts. There was no
hearing on whether this bill could profit the President and his family
at the expense of the American people.
This is a problematic bill under a problematic rule that doesn't
allow good ideas to come forward and be debated. We aren't even able to
debate helpful amendments.
I know of at least one important amendment that isn't being allowed
to be debated on the floor, which is Representative Lofgren's amendment
that would allow the current Librarian to fill the existing vacancy at
the Copyright Office, and when that Register leaves, the new process
would then apply. It seems like a commonsense transition process. Why
can't we get a simple vote on that amendment?
I say again, this bill is a solution in search of a problem. Frankly,
this bill makes the problem worse by giving the President the chance to
put his business associate and golf buddies in charge of his own
copyrights.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to refrain
from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the President's personality is perfectly
charming. I certainly wouldn't disparage his personality. What I am
talking about is him putting a golf buddy or a business associate in
charge of an office that he receives a direct profit from. That is
called conflict of interest. That is what we are debating here today.
It is not about the President's personality. Obviously, he is perfectly
charming in person. I would be happy to have dinner with him. I am
still waiting for the invitation.
The Copyright Office has an important function. In order to fulfill
that function of registering copyrights, it needs to be a neutral
arbiter. By making the head of the Copyright Office a political
advocate, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, it
will increasingly politicize copyrights, the basic protection Americans

[[Page H2866]]

rely on regarding the tradeoff between payoffs for innovation and the
right of consumers for dissemination. There is no chance a political
appointee will be neutral, by nature of them being a political
appointee.
A political appointee will likely be the puppet of big corporations
and the administration in their decisions around registration of
copyrights. That doesn't help the budding author, it doesn't help the
budding musician in a dispute, and it certainly doesn't help anyone
trying to navigate an outdated and archaic system that needs to be
modernized. This bill will indefinitely delay the modernization
process.
I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and
``no'' on the bill. The last thing we need is President Trump's golf
buddies to be in charge of his own copyrights to further profit the
President and the First Family, who have pleasant personalities.
Do we really want to give more power to the administration so they
can do favors for themselves and their own business interests? I hope
not. Let's vote ``no.''
We should be considering a funding bill to keep the government open
instead of waiting until the absolute last second, hurting businesses
and Americans with the huge amount of uncertainty created.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule,
``no'' on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Again, regardless of the last discussion, there are things about this
bill that I have talked about when we first started, and doing this
actually brings us into a position of modernizing the Copyright Office,
which has been discussed a long time.
I do want to address, just briefly, that there has been some
discussion about an IG report. There has been discussion about,
especially, the former Register of Copyrights.
As I made clear in the conference, this has nothing to do with that
being brought up. Implying things that were out of this IG report was
basically attempting a character assassination of the former Register
of Copyrights.
I think in doing so, it has to be understood that, even in that IG
report that is discussed, one of the Library's own responses back to
the concerns of the IG report was that, in 2015, the inspector general
found that the Copyright Office was compliant with all library
methodology. With respect to its primary software applications, the
Electronic Copyright Office and Copyright Imaging System, which support
registration and recordation functions and are managed by the CTO, were
all in compliance. I think that is really interesting as we look at
this.
But also what this IG report actually did say was that there were a
lot of other problems. In fact, the GAO report in 2015 said the Library
does not have the leadership to address IT management. That is why the
Copyright Office was having to look at this because, also, in August
2015, of the Library's poor response and modernization, which are
things that we are looking toward and how much this affects our
economy. Because of the Library's problems, the electronic licensing
system went down; and for 10 days, no one could register a copyright.

In fairness, you may not like this bill, you may not like the current
structure, and that is fine; but when we discuss the Library, there are
a lot of issues that I am sure will be addressed in the relevant
committees in their oversight on this IG report. That is what they are
designed to do.
What we are designed to do here is also not take and pick and choose
and cherry-pick what parts of the report we want to talk about because
we are trying to justify the current Librarian's decision last fall.
When we understand this, we will begin to move forward on the Copyright
Modernization Act.
Let's get back to the real functionality of what this is, not who we
appoint or how they are appointed, but the fact that this matters to
millions of people and also accounts for trillions of dollars in our
industries across the world.
The Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act is an
important and bipartisan step. I repeat again, it came out with a vote
of 27-1 in the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Speaker, I serve on that
committee. That is not a usual vote on legislation that is making a
positive, large, lasting impact that we are seeing on this. It is the
first step rather than the last step in modernization.
As we look forward to this, I will simply say this is a good bill. It
has been perfected by both Republicans and Democrats. As I have said
before, Sheila Jackson Lee, the Congresswoman from Texas, was very
helpful putting this package together, along with the chairman and
ranking member on both sides of the aisle, as we come forward with
this.
It is sort of a shame that, when we come to this bill, we diverge
into rabbit trails away from the real issue. The real issue is let's
help those folks who depend on the Copyright Office. Let's make
modernize it. Let's make it the tool it is supposed to be, and that is
the adviser of the expert in these issues for Congress. When we do so,
at that point in time our economy continues to flourish, we get aside
from the theatrics, and we get back to the real importance of the bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 275 Offered by Mr. Polis

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
305) to amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require
the disclosure of certain tax returns by Presidents and
certain candidates for the office of the President, and for
other purposes. 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 among and
controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority
members of the Committees on Ways and Means and Oversight and
Government Reform. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At
the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 305.
____

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

[[Page H2867]]

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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234,
nays 191, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 224]

YEAS--234

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
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)
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
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
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 (CT)
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
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--5

Cleaver
Marino
Newhouse
Slaughter
Tonko

{time} 1345

Mses. JACKSON LEE, BASS, Mrs. BEATTY, Messrs. GOTTHEIMER, and
COURTNEY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 225.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237,
noes 186, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 225]

AYES--237

[[Page H2868]]

King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kuster (NH)
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
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
Schneider
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Suozzi
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOES--186

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

NOT VOTING--7

Cole
Duncan (TN)
Marchant
Marino
Newhouse
Slaughter
Tonko

{time} 1353

Mr. RUSH changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
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.

____________________