[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 7, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H1451-H1458]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1119, SATISFYING ENERGY NEEDS AND 
  SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 
 1917, BLOCKING REGULATORY INTERFERENCE FROM CLOSING KILNS ACT OF 2017

  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 762 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 762

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1119) to 
     establish the bases by which the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency shall issue, implement, and 
     enforce certain emission limitations and allocations for 
     existing electric utility steam generating units that convert 
     coal refuse into energy. All points of

[[Page H1452]]

     order against consideration of the bill are waived. The 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill 
     shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall 
     be considered as read. All points of order against provisions 
     in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and 
     on any further 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 Energy and Commerce; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1917) to allow 
     for judicial review of any final rule addressing national 
     emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for brick and 
     structural clay products or for clay ceramics manufacturing 
     before requiring compliance with such rule. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. An 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 115-62 shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further 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 Energy and Commerce; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
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

  Ms. CHENEY. 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 
gentlewoman from Wyoming?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 762, which 
provides for the consideration of H.R. 1119, the Satisfying Energy 
Needs and Saving the Environment--or SENSE--Act, and provides for 
consideration of H.R. 1917, the Blocking Regulatory Interference from 
Closing Kilns--or BRICK--Act of 2017.
  Mr. Speaker, for many years our domestic energy industry has suffered 
under unnecessary and politically motivated regulations and burdensome, 
bureaucratic red tape, prohibiting growth and innovation. President 
Trump and his administration have been working hard, along with this 
Congress, to undo the policies which have so harmed our domestic energy 
industry.
  Today's rule allows for the consideration of two bills, which will 
further those efforts and reform our regulatory framework so our energy 
producers can do their jobs more efficiently and economically, along 
with safeguards that will still be in place to protect health and 
safety. These bills provide a commonsense solution to tailor EPA 
emission standards, and they provide reasonable compliance timelines 
for the specific regulated industries.
  The first bill, H.R. 1119, the SENSE Act, is sponsored by my 
colleague, Mr. Rothfus from Pennsylvania. This bill would provide for 
targeted modifications to the EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, 
MATS, as it applies to coal refuse-to-energy facilities. The EPA has 
included certain emissions limits in the new standards that are just 
simply not achievable for these refuse plants.
  These specialized power plants have been developed to recycle coal 
refuse by using it as an energy source to generate affordable, reliable 
electricity. These facilities have thus far removed 214 million tons of 
coal refuse from the environment, at no expense to taxpayers.
  In addition to helping address coal refuse, these facilities have 
created an estimated 1,200 direct jobs and 4,000 indirect jobs in areas 
that have been economically distressed for many years.

                              {time}  1230

  There are 19 of these coal refuse-to-energy facilities, many of which 
are at direct risk of being shut down absent passage of the SENSE Act.
  The SENSE Act would create a way for coal refuse-to-energy facilities 
to continue their much-needed work by allowing these plants to 
demonstrate compliance with EPA's hydrochloric acid standard by using 
sulfur dioxide as a proxy and assuming that a 93 percent reduction in 
sulfur dioxide demonstrates compliance with the hydrochloric acid 
emissions reduction standard.
  The bill would still require these coal refuse-to-energy facilities 
to be subject to emissions limitations and to achieve substantial 
declines in emissions; but it would do so in a way that these 
facilities can achieve while also remaining operational, recognizing 
the crucial role they play in providing energy, and helping to clean up 
coal refuse sites.
  Mr. Speaker, our rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1917, 
the Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns, or BRICK, Act 
of 2017 sponsored by my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Johnson). This bill 
will help preserve America's brickmaking industry and its 7,000 jobs 
and protects them from an EPA rule that created a far too rushed 
compliance timetable for businesses across the Nation.
  The emissions standards in this rule apply to kilns at brick and 
structural clay products manufacturing facilities and at clay ceramic 
manufacturing facilities. Industry has estimated the cost of this rule, 
if allowed to go into effect, would potentially exceed $100 million 
annually, which is four times higher than what the EPA initially 
estimated. This is yet one more example of how poorly thought-out and 
misguided regulations are harming industries and have been a severe 
hindrance to the kind of job creation we know we can now see unleashed 
across our Nation.
  We have got to ensure businesses have time to comply and that 
regulations make sense. We should not force them into arbitrary time 
lines that will make them shut down. H.R. 1917 provides that needed 
time and makes compliance possible.
  The BRICK Act also includes the text of the Relief from New Source 
Performance Standards. This legislation was authored by my Democratic 
colleague from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson). The provision in this bill 
will help both manufacturers and users of wood heaters by providing 
relief from overly burdensome and arbitrary time lines that have been 
imposed by the EPA's New Source Performance Standards. Specifically, 
this bill provides an additional 3 years for businesses to comply with 
this rule.
  Wood heaters are an affordable source of home heating, especially in 
rural America, and it is critically important that we protect this low-
cost source of heating. The New Source Performance Standards for wood 
heaters, which took effect in 2015, include a provision that is proving 
nearly impossible, once again, for manufacturers to comply with as they 
are struggling to design compliant models in the short timeframe 
allowed by the agency. As a result, we have seen workers laid off and 
other companies fearing that they will not be able to stay in business 
after 2020.
  Wood heater users in many low-income households across the country 
face the likelihood of having to pay more and having a reduced product 
choice. This is one more example of Federal overreach in which the 
agency failed to take into account the real impact of these regulations 
on everyday Americans across our country.
  It is crucial that we pass the BRICK Act, which would extend the 
deadline for the second phase of the wood heater standards from 2020 to 
2023, and provide time for meaningful judicial review of the Brick and 
Structural Clay Products: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants before the owners and operations of these facilities are 
required to make significant and potentially irreversible decisions 
regarding capital investments, or driving them out of business 
altogether.
  Mr. Speaker, we must ensure emissions standards are reasonable and do 
not unnecessarily cripple small businesses, which we know are the 
drivers of our economy.
  Mr. Speaker, therefore, I encourage support for the rule for these 
important bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H1453]]

  

  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like first to thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming 
(Ms. Cheney), my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for 
debate.
  Today's bills would modify Clean Air Act regulations, or the act 
itself, to give a handout to specified industries to emit more 
pollution into the air. These bills, in my view, would result in more 
smog, more fine particle pollution, and more toxic air pollution. The 
effects would be worse, resulting in more asthma attacks, more kids in 
emergency rooms, more bronchitis, more cancer diagnoses, and more birth 
defects.
  Mr. Speaker, these bills represent a fundamentally unfair and deeply 
troubling approach to regulation. In bringing up these bills, the 
Republican-controlled Congress is granting favors to special interests 
at the expense of public health. Shocking, but not surprising. By 
bringing up these bills, the majority intends to overturn evidence-
based, scientific decisions made by the Environmental Protection 
Agency, States, and courts after a transparent and extensive process.
  To date, the Trump administration, with the help of the Republican-
controlled Congress, has targeted 67 environmental rules. One of those 
rules was the requirement that mining companies prove they have the 
financial wherewithal to clean up their pollution. Another is the rule 
regulating airborne mercury emissions from fossil fuel power plants. 
And most recently, the administration announced it was targeting oil 
rig safety regulations, regulations that were implemented after the 
2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill, a spill that burned for 
36 hours, released 4.9 billion barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of 
Mexico, spread 3,850 square miles, and resulted in billions of dollars 
of losses to the U.S. fishing industry and the Gulf Coast tourist 
industry.

  Mr. Speaker, since passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, America has 
made substantial progress in cleaning up this Nation's air. We have 
done this by following a fundamental principle: holding polluters 
accountable for their pollution.
  Instead of following this commonsense, bedrock principle, my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle insist on creating loopholes 
for a few favored industries: waste coal plants, brick manufacturers, 
and those who manufacture residential wood heaters.
  Mr. Speaker, the first of these bills, the ironically titled SENSE 
Act, weakens the critical Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule, which 
established the first national standards to address power plant 
emissions of toxic air pollutants. This Mercury and Air Toxics 
Standards rule requires coal-fired power plants to meet emissions 
standards for mercury, other metals, and acid gases.
  Has the majority engaged in any in-depth analysis of what will happen 
when this rule is weakened? Has the majority filled its ranks with 
experts, scientists, and doctors who will be able to put forth a case 
for why undermining this rule is good policy? Of course not.
  Mr. Speaker, here is what we know: The Environmental Protection 
Agency estimates that for every dollar spent to reduce pollution under 
this rule American families receive up to $9 in health benefits. In 
fact, the EPA estimated that, in 2016, the MATS rule would avoid up to 
11,000 premature deaths, 2,800 cases of chronic bronchitis, 4,700 heart 
attacks, 130,000 cases of aggravated asthma, 5,700 hospital and 
emergency room visits, 6,300 cases of acute bronchitis, 140,000 cases 
of respiratory symptoms, and 540,000 days when people miss work. My 
Republican colleagues want to do away with those health benefits and, 
instead, permit favored industries to pollute more.
  Mr. Speaker, the second measure combines two bills: H.R. 1917, the 
BRICK Act; and H.R. 453, the Relief from New Source Performance 
Standards Act. The BRICK Act unjustifiably delays reductions in toxic 
air pollution from brick manufacturers by allowing them to continue to 
pollute until all their lawsuits are exhausted. The bill throws out 
existing judicial process by providing a blanket extension for any 
compliance deadline, regardless of the merits of the case.
  Under well established legal norms, the court of appeals for the 
district circuit may stay a rule during litigation if it finds that the 
party seeking the stay has demonstrated that there is a likelihood of 
success on the merits, the prospect of irreparable harm to the party 
requesting the stay, and, most importantly, whether granting the stay 
is in the public interest. To date, not one of the industry litigants 
have even asked the court to stay the Brick and Structural Clay 
Products rule. Not one. Presumably it is because they recognize that 
they cannot meet this legal standard.
  Mr. Speaker, the existing judicial process is the appropriate method 
to seek a stay of the rule and is the preferable method to unnecessary 
congressional intervention proposed by the BRICK Act.
  This brings me to H.R. 453, the Relief from New Source Performance 
Standards Act, which delays cleaner burning wood stoves until 2023, on 
top of the 5 years manufacturers already had to comply, exposing 
communities to additional years of unhealthy fine particle pollution, 
carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds.
  In 2015, the EPA strengthened the pollution control requirements for 
new residential wood heaters. The new standards would cut fine particle 
pollution and volatile organic compounds from new wood heaters by 
almost 70 percent and will cut carbon monoxide pollution by 62 percent. 
The EPA even included provisions in the rule to help manufacturers 
achieve the new standards, giving the manufacturers 5 years to comply.
  Mr. Speaker, these pollutants combine with other pollutants in the 
air from smog, black carbon, and benzene, harming the health of the 
American people, particularly our kids and seniors, who will have to 
pay for these special interest breaks with their health and, in some 
cases, with their lives. These three bills sacrifice Americans' health 
with additional years of unnecessary pollution.
  Mr. Speaker, it is as disappointing as it is frustrating that we come 
here today to debate bills that will increase pollution in our country 
and also have very little hope--let me underscore that: very little 
hope--of ever becoming law. We have real work to do in this place, and 
these bills are not that work.
  This body must turn its attention to finally addressing the gun 
violence epidemic that has taken over our country. Most recently at 
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, in a 
district adjacent to the district that I am privileged to serve, less 
than a month ago, a 19-year-old legally purchased a semiautomatic AR-15 
and used it to methodically murder 14 of his former classmates and 
three teachers.
  What was the response of this body? Well, we did prayers and 
thoughts, which is good. But did my Republican colleagues bring to the 
floor a bill that would ban assault weapons? Did they bring to the 
floor legislation to close the gun show loophole? Did they bring to the 
floor legislation that would raise the minimum purchase age for rifles? 
Or mandatory comprehensive background checks for gun buyers and ban 
bump stocks? Or allow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to 
study gun violence?

                              {time}  1245

  No, Mr. Speaker. Instead this body offered, as I said, its thoughts 
and prayers.
  And I have said it before and I will say it again today: those who 
stand in the way of legislation that will address our country's gun 
violence epidemic are increasingly culpable for its needless 
continuation.
  So what we choose to talk about is pollution. What we should be 
talking about is the gun epidemic, and I will get to DACA a little bit 
later in my closing.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), my colleague and the sponsor of the SENSE 
Act.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, just listening to the other side's comments about the 
SENSE Act, I am wondering if they

[[Page H1454]]

have read the same bill or if they have ever visited the hills of 
western Pennsylvania where we see the environmental damage that waste 
coal piles have done and the tremendous progress that we have seen over 
the last number of decades in actually cleaning up the environment.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in support of H. Res. 762, the rule 
that is under consideration, and I want to talk about the SENSE Act, 
which is included within this rule, H.R. 1119.
  This is a pro-environment bill. The purpose of the bill is to ensure 
that coal refuse-to-energy facilities can be held to strict but 
achievable standards.
  To be clear, these plants comply with nearly all standards as it is, 
including mercury emissions. We are talking about a modification, a 
customization, as it were, in recognition of the tremendous benefit 
that these plants have made to the environment.
  I have introduced versions of this bill during prior Congresses, and 
I am hopeful that this bill can become law. It enjoys bipartisan 
support.
  As many of you know, coal refuse is a by-product of historic coal 
mining operations. Throughout many parts of coal country, towering 
black mounds of this material loom beside cities and towns, especially 
in Pennsylvania and in West Virginia.
  I would invite my colleague from Florida to come up to western 
Pennsylvania and take a look at the scarred landscape and polluted 
rivers we have there as a result of these coal refuse piles.
  Many of these piles can smoulder, can spontaneously combust, giving 
off emissions with no controls, zero controls. They catch fire, burning 
uncontrollably, sending hazardous smoke into the air and into 
surrounding communities. Local governments are then forced to spend 
increasingly scarce taxpayer resources fighting these fires.
  Rainwater leaches terrible chemicals from these mounds, polluting 
nearby rivers and streams.
  Fortunately, the coal refuse-to-energy industry turns this material 
into energy, while cleaning up and remediating many polluted sites, at 
no cost to the taxpayer.
  These power plants are really the only practical solution to this 
massive environmental problem that we have in Pennsylvania and West 
Virginia that could cost, in Pennsylvania alone, an estimated $2 
billion to remediate. This is being done without taxpayer funding right 
now, the cleanup, because of these plants.
  For several years, I have spoken about the tremendous work being done 
by hardworking folks in this industry, which I have seen firsthand. I 
have stood on coal refuse piles in the process of remediation, and I 
have also walked on restored sites, many of which are parks and 
meadows, now regarded as community assets rather than liabilities. I 
have seen the streams that were once dead that now have fish.
  Despite all the good that this industry does for Pennsylvania and 
West Virginia, five coal refuse-to-energy facilities are under threat 
from Federal regulations, seemingly incapable of needed flexibility to 
accommodate private sector work that is actually improving the 
environment.
  If rigid EPA orthodoxy makes no exceptions for this pro-environment 
industry, it is not just the environment that will continue to suffer. 
These plants support family-sustaining jobs, and thousands of jobs are 
at stake if these plants are regulated out of business, both direct and 
indirect.
  I should note that many of these jobs are in localities that have 
already been hit exceptionally hard by both the last recession and the 
ongoing opioid crisis.
  The people expect us to stand for them, especially when their 
livelihoods come under threat from heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all 
Washington policies. So as we debate the SENSE Act, please keep in mind 
what the bill's supporters are fighting for.
  Here is what is going to happen if this law doesn't pass: rivers and 
streams aren't going to come back to life; hillsides aren't going to be 
restored; and these piles, they can spontaneously combust, again, with 
no emissions control whatsoever.
  The SENSE Act is about protecting family-sustaining jobs and ensuring 
the continuation of the environmental success story of the coal refuse-
to-energy industry. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the rule and 
the SENSE Act.
  Again, are we capable of making judgments in this House? Are we 
capable of customizing one-size-fits all.
  The EPA, frankly, has recognized the work of this industry. ``Coal 
refuse piles,'' the EPA has said, ``are an environmental concern 
because of acid seepage and leachate production, spontaneous 
combustion, and low soil fertility. Units that burn coal refuse provide 
multimedia environmental benefits by combining the production of energy 
with the removal of coal refuse piles and by reclaiming land for 
productive use. Consequently, because of the unique environmental 
benefits that coal refuse-fired EGUs provide,'' the EPA said, ``these 
units warrant special consideration. . . .''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. CHENEY. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.

  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will see the benefits 
that can come from this. This isn't a special interest carveout, unless 
you consider cleaning up the environment in western Pennsylvania to be 
a special interest.
  Again, are we capable of making judgments about what this town puts 
out, one size fits all, seemingly with blinders on, not having the 
ability to recognize that in certain circumstances customization is 
appropriate?
  That is what this underlying bill, the SENSE Act, does. It does make 
sense: satisfying energy needs and saving the environment. I hope my 
colleagues would see the sense in that and work with us to allow the 
environmental cleanup to continue and to protect hundreds of family-
sustaining jobs across western Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, 6 months ago, Donald John Trump decided to end the DACA 
program, a program which gave hundreds of thousands of hardworking 
young people hope for the future. He gave Congress until March 5--that 
was 2 days ago--to pass a bill. Since then, House Democrats have tried 
23 times to pass bipartisan legislation to fix this problem. Donald 
John Trump even tweeted: ``Total inaction on DACA by Dems. Where are 
you?''
  Well, Mr. President, where we are is right here, waiting for this 
deal that you say can be made. Yet, on 23 occasions, it was our friends 
on the other side of the aisle who refused to make a deal and rejected 
even considering the bipartisan Dream Act that was deadlined by you, 
Donald John Trump, on March 5.
  We need to address this vital issue now. Approximately 120 Dreamers 
lose their status each day. Over 22,000 have lost their status since 
the administration ended the program.
  Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues: Let's do something now to lift 
the cloud that hangs over these young people who are American in every 
way except on paper.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer 
for the 24th time an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the 
Dream Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation will help solve the 
problem created by Donald John Trump's decision to end the DACA 
program.
  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 Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair, not to a perceived viewing audience.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Costa), my good friend, a member of the Agriculture and 
Natural Resources Committees of this Congress, who will discuss our 
proposal.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings), for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States, as we know, is a nation of 
immigrants, past and present. For hundreds of years, people have come 
to our shores

[[Page H1455]]

in search of a better life for themselves and for their children.
  Immigrants from across the world have made incredible contributions 
to our country. We know that as fact. From starting businesses to 
healing the sick, to harvesting our fields and putting food on 
America's dinner table, to ensuring safety and pursuing justice, 
immigrants have made America a great nation because of their 
contributions. Yet there have been times when our Nation has struggled 
to live up to our own ideals, and right now, I think, is one of those 
times.
  This week, the President's deadline, March 5, 2 days past, to end the 
DACA program took effect, threatening hundreds of thousands of lives of 
Dreamers. Now, let us remember, this is because of President Trump's 
unilateral action last September to repeal DACA that we are in the 
position that we are in today.
  Mr. Speaker, I am standing here with the Dreamers, with over 80 
percent of Americans, and with many of my colleagues who believe we 
ought to fix this problem. I ask Speaker Ryan and I call upon this 
Chamber to vote now on the bipartisan, bicameral Dream Act.
  This bill would provide permanent legislative protections for our 
Dreamers, immigrants who were brought to the United States' shores as 
children at the average age of 6 years. For them, America is the only 
country they have ever known. The Dream Act will provide these young 
people with legal status and, ultimately, a path to citizenship.
  In my district, there are thousands of DACA recipients, thousands of 
Dreamers, currently, over 600 at the University of California, Merced, 
and more than that at my alma mater, Fresno State.
  President Castro at Fresno State and I had a meeting with a group of 
Dreamers recently. Let me tell you about one student whom I met, who 
would be helped by the Dream Act, Rodolfo. What a story he had to tell, 
along with the other students.
  Rodolfo came to the United States with his mother and siblings when 
he was 4 years old, at great risk. He is set to graduate from Fresno 
State with a degree in chemistry this year.
  DACA gave him the ability to work through school and help his family. 
And after all, isn't that the immigrant way?
  Just last week, Rodolfo got some great news. He learned that he was 
admitted to the University of California, San Francisco's School of 
Pharmacy, one of the best schools in the Nation. His dream as a Dreamer 
is to use his education and skills to give back to our communities by 
providing healthcare to underserved communities.
  Rodolfo, we want Dreamers like you here in the United States. There 
are over 800,000 of you, all contributing and giving. Many of you serve 
in our armed services today.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to bring the Dream Act to the floor 
for a vote. Support this legislation. They should not be held hostage 
for other agendas that are out there, and clearly this is the case.
  This is common sense. I ask my colleagues to do the right thing. 
Let's bring the Dream Act to the floor as soon as we can.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Johnson), the sponsor of the BRICK Act.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to 
speak.
  Mr. Speaker, I am actually a little bit confused. I thought this was 
supposed to be a debate on a rule dealing with overturning onerous EPA 
regulations. Instead, our colleagues on the left want to talk about 
something totally nongermane and change the subject. And then we wonder 
why the American people get so frustrated that this institution can't 
seem to address its big issues.

                              {time}  1300

  I also heard a little bit ago an impassioned claim by my colleague on 
the left over here that the legislation that we are talking about today 
somehow flies in the face of the courts. That is not true because the 
courts have already overturned this regulation one time and set it 
aside, and it has cost the industries millions and millions of dollars 
that they shouldn't have had to spend.
  I also heard it claimed that it flies in the face of commonsense, 
science-based evidence. That is not true because, if it were, then the 
courts wouldn't have made the decision to set it aside in the first 
place.
  H.R. 1917, the BRICK Act, is about regulatory common sense, Mr. 
Speaker, but it is also about preserving good-paying jobs in rural 
communities across America. Brickmakers and tile manufacturers are 
primarily small businesses, and their product is critical for our 
infrastructure. They have built some of the most iconic towns and 
buildings across America, and this bill will help ensure that these 
small businesses are able to continue to do exactly that.
  The EPA's current Brick MACT rule, finalized in 2015, would impose 
millions of dollars in costs on these small businesses, all before 
judicial review of the rule is complete. And while the EPA, under the 
former administration, estimates that the annual costs to comply with 
the rule will be about $25 million, other estimates have projected the 
annual costs to be up to $100 million or greater.
  For a facility with two kilns, which is the industry average, the 
costs are estimated to be $4.4 million. Securing capital for these 
projects will be very difficult, and some worry that it will simply not 
be available considering that these compliance costs will not improve 
plant productivity nor help its bottom line. What is worse is that 
these costs are over and above the tens of millions of dollars spent by 
the industry to comply with an earlier version of the rule vacated by 
the D.C. Circuit Court in 2007.
  H.R. 1917 simply allows for the consideration and completion of any 
judicial review regarding the 2015 regulation before requiring 
compliance. For an industry that has faced so much regulatory 
uncertainty, through rules, vacated rules, and now new regulation, H.R. 
1917 will help inject a bit of much-needed regulatory certainty back 
into this industry.
  Additionally, this bill provides regulatory relief for our wood 
heater manufacturers, which helps provide an affordable source of heat 
for many low-income and rural households. EPA regulations set to take 
effect in 2020 are causing some manufacturers to already lay off 
workers. This industry needs more time to comply, and a provision 
within H.R. 1917 will simply extend that compliance deadline from 2020 
to 2023. If left unchanged, product choice will diminish, prices will 
rise, and more jobs will be lost.
  Mr. Speaker, we must ensure our Federal agencies are not needlessly 
regulating companies out of business. Brick manufacturers have suffered 
heavy losses since the recession, losing about 45 percent of jobs 
between 2005 and 2012. Increased compliance costs from these EPA 
regulations will only lead to more job losses and consolidations within 
this primarily family-owned business industry.
  We owe this industry regulatory certainty. I urge my colleagues to 
support this rule and to support H.R. 1917 because, if we don't, if the 
brick industry gets shut down because of these onerous rules, we are 
going to start building buildings, Mr. Speaker, out of straw and sticks 
instead of bricks.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have watched this last year as members of the 
Republican majority worked diligently to eliminate Federal 
environmental regulations that serve to keep the American people safe 
from harmful toxins in their air and water.
  I couldn't help but be amused by my colleague on the right's comments 
at the end that we will be using sticks instead of bricks. Very clever. 
But the real truth of the matter is, in certain parts of the world--and 
I would urge him to visit some of them--there are examples of things 
other than brick for construction. I have no quarrel with the brick 
industry. I just urge--and in many instances they are already doing 
it--that they do everything they can not to pollute the environment.
  I have watched members in the Republican majority work relentlessly 
for special interest groups instead of working for all of the American 
people. I have watched members of the Republican majority put the wish 
list of the powerful corporate gun lobby ahead of the safety of the 
American people.

[[Page H1456]]

  On Monday, we all watched a self-imposed Republican deadline slip by, 
to the detriment of thousands upon thousands of young people in our 
country who we have identified as Dreamers, young people who know no 
other country as home than the United States of America. Every day of 
inaction on the part of my friends across the aisle means another day 
that families are needlessly and cruelly made to live under the threat 
of being torn asunder.
  My colleague, Lois Frankel, and I were at a men's club before a 
couple of hundred of men in the Valencia Cove in Boynton Beach. The 
question was put to both of us: Why do we support illegal immigrants in 
this country?
  We tried to make the distinction for him with reference to Dreamers 
and the fact that all of these young people were brought here against 
their volition by their parents. So it is the Dreamers that we are 
supporting. I think he finally understood the importance of our doing 
comprehensive immigration reform in this country.
  Democrats have offered to bring the Dream Act to the floor now 24 
times. We are going to give them one more chance. We have done it 23, 
and every single time this effort has been blocked by the majority.
  To address my friend who correctly cited that we were bringing this 
up: It is not so much to change the topic of the day. We don't have 
that prerogative. But we do have embedded in this rule the prerogative 
to bring a previous question, and that can be on any subject that we 
choose. What we choose to do is to prioritize things that we consider 
to be important. It would not have blocked this particular measure.

  But the fact is, enough is enough. The President says he wants to fix 
this problem. The Speaker says he wants to fix this problem. We on this 
side of the aisle clearly want to fix this problem. So let's do it now.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, on the previous 
question, and on the underlying bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I enjoy very much serving on the Rules Committee with 
all of my colleagues on the committee. One of the things that I am 
often asked because I am a new Member of this body is: What has 
surprised me most about being a Member of Congress?
  My answer is: Often you see on the outside what looks like a lot of 
vitriol between the parties, but, in actuality, I believe that every 
Member of this body is here for the right reasons. They are here 
because they want to serve the people of their districts, the people of 
their States, and the people of this Nation.
  I think it is crucially important, Mr. Speaker, particularly when we 
are talking about something as sacred as the safety of our children, 
that we not engage in the kind of partisan attacks, that we not exploit 
tragedy, that we not engage in the kind of questioning of motives that 
I just heard my colleague on the other side of the aisle do.
  I know my colleague, Mr. Hastings, knows that we may have 
disagreements, but the reason that I, as a mother, feel so strongly 
about the Second Amendment is because I want to keep our kids safe. I 
know he knows that my beliefs about the Second Amendment, though they 
are different from his, are not based upon any campaign donations and 
any campaign contributions. I know he knows that they are based very 
firmly on a fundamental commitment to the importance of the Second 
Amendment as part of what makes this Nation safe, as part of what makes 
our individuals secure, and how important it is for us not to use this 
tragedy to take steps--that may make people feel better--that 
fundamentally violate our constitutional rights and that won't keep our 
kids safe.
  When you go down the path that we have heard so many on the other 
side of the aisle suggest we go down, whether they are talking about 
banning entire classes of weapons, whether they are talking about 
expanding background checks so that they are somehow universal--our 
background check system right now is broken. It doesn't work.
  We have a situation in which States are not reporting in the way that 
they ought to report. So when I hear my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle suggest that what we ought to do, frankly, is expand a system 
that is failing and call that progress, I can't help but think that 
that is pretty much their standard operating procedure: No matter what 
the policy is, let's expand the broken system, let's ignore whether or 
not it is really working, and let's call it progress.
  Mr. Speaker, I will not be a party to that. I will not be a party in 
a situation in which we have had tragedy after tragedy, a situation in 
which in this most recent tragedy law enforcement fundamentally at all 
levels failed our children. When you have individuals inside of a 
school who were killed because armed officers outside the school failed 
to enter, when you have children who are killed because call after call 
after call to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and to the local law 
enforcement officials went unheeded because specific tips about this 
particular individual went unheeded, that is not a time, Mr. Speaker, 
for us to say: What we ought to do then is prevent law-abiding 
Americans from having access to the firearms that they need to defend 
and protect themselves.
  I think, Mr. Speaker, if you look at what those on the other side of 
the aisle are attempting to do with respect to the debate about guns 
and the debate about school safety, it is critically important for all 
of us to stand up and say: No, we will not go down a path that is going 
to violate constitutional rights, that will not keep our children safe, 
and find some kind of false comfort in that.
  When you are talking about the bills that are before us today, Mr. 
Speaker, we are in a similar situation. We have had 8 years in the 
Obama administration where they imposed regulation after regulation 
after regulation in the name of somehow protecting the environment.
  Mr. Speaker, President Obama's own EPA Administrator testified in 
front of Congress that the Clean Power Plan would, in fact, not have 
any sort of positive impact on the environment or on global 
temperatures, yet they imposed it anyway, imposing massive costs on our 
industry in the name, I suppose, of trying to feel better and trying to 
feel like they are doing something. But what they are really doing is 
actually putting ourselves in a situation where we are harming small 
businesses, where we are strangling them, and where we are preventing 
their ability to grow and to thrive. We know we can do that, Mr. 
Speaker, in a way that also protects our environment.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Rothfus and Mr. 
Johnson, for their work on these very important bills.
  In Wyoming, Mr. Speaker, we know that our coal and our fossil fuels 
are national treasures. They are absolutely crucial to providing the 
power that runs this Nation. I am proud of all that we in this body and 
President Trump together have done to roll back dangerous and ill-
advised Obama-era regulations that have been aimed at killing our 
fossil fuel industry.
  We can no longer go down the path of allowing these regulations to 
exist in a way that devastates industry, puts the fundamental 
reliability of our electricity and of our energy grid at risk, and 
achieves no measurable impact for the environment. It is long past time 
for that indefensible approach to end. That is what we are doing here 
today.
  These are good bills. They are important bills. They will take this 
next step in rolling back the kind of overwhelming regulation that we 
have seen, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of both the rule and the underlying 
bills.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 762 Offered by Mr. Hastings

       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. 
     3440) to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment 
     of status of certain individuals who are long-term United 
     States residents and who entered the United States as 
     children 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

[[Page H1457]]

     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. 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. 3440.
                                  ____


        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.

  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). 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. HASTINGS. 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 229, 
nays 183, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 96]

                               YEAS--229

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     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
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     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
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     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
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Perry
     Pittenger
     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
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     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--183

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     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
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     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)
     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
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     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)
     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
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

[[Page H1458]]


  


                             NOT VOTING--18

     Barr
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Hice, Jody B.
     Johnson, E. B.
     Lieu, Ted
     Meeks
     Nolan
     Pearce
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Shea-Porter
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Stivers
     Waters, Maxine
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1339

  Messrs. SCHNEIDER, SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York, BISHOP of 
Georgia, GENE GREEN of Texas, CLEAVER, ELLISON, and RUSH changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. UPTON, McCLINTOCK, WALDEN, and SMITH of New Jersey changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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. HASTINGS. 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 227, 
noes 185, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 97]

                               AYES--227

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     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
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     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
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     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
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Perry
     Pittenger
     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
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--185

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     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
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     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
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     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)
     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
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     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)
     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--18

     Barr
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Gabbard
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hollingsworth
     Johnson, E. B.
     Lieu, Ted
     Nolan
     Palazzo
     Pearce
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Shea-Porter
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Stivers

                              {time}  1346

  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

                          ____________________