[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 109 (Thursday, June 28, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H5820-H5826]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 970, INSISTING DEPARTMENT OF 
               JUSTICE COMPLY WITH REQUESTS AND SUBPOENAS

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 971 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 971

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order without intervention of any point of order to 
     consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 970) insisting 
     that the Department of Justice fully comply with the 
     requests, including subpoenas, of the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence and the subpoena issued by the 
     Committee on the Judiciary relating to potential violations 
     of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by personnel of 
     the Department of Justice and related matters. The resolution 
     shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to 
     adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of 
     the question except one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. 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 material on House Resolution 971, under current 
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, this morning I am pleased to 
bring forward this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule 
provides for consideration of H. Res. 970, which insists that the 
Department of Justice comply with the request of the Judiciary and 
Intelligence Committees. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, 
equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Yesterday, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from 
Congressman  Jim Jordan, a fellow Judiciary Committee member, as well 
as Ranking Member Jerry Nadler. We also heard from Congressman Mark 
Meadows and Congressman Scott Perry and engaged in a vigorous 
discussion that lasted a while in the Rules Committee yesterday.

[[Page H5821]]

  Mr. Speaker, oversight of the executive branch is one of the House's 
most important responsibilities and authorities. As a member of the 
Judiciary Committee, which has oversight over the Department of Justice 
and the FBI, it is a responsibility that I take very seriously.
  I believe the administration has an obligation to comply with the 
committees of jurisdictions' legitimate oversight requests and 
subpoenas. Unfortunately, the Department of Justice has not fully 
complied with numerous of these requests, many of these which stretch 
back several months. To illustrate this, let me lay out a timeline for 
you.
  On November 3, 2017, Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Gowdy, along 
with additional Members, sent a letter to the Attorney General and 
Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, requesting five specific 
categories of documents. The deadline listed in the letter was November 
17, 2017. That deadline was not met.
  On December 12, 2017, Chairman Goodlatte, Chairman Gowdy, and 
additional Members sent a letter reiterating the expectation that the 
Department of Justice provide the requested documents. The deadline 
listed in that letter was December 19, 2017. Again, the deadline 
arrived, and again, the deadline was not met.
  On February 1, 2018, Chairman Goodlatte sent a third letter 
requesting documents relating to potential abuses under the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act.
  On March 22, 2018, the Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to 
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein compelling him to produce 
documents and communications referring to internal DOJ or FBI 
management requests to review, scrub, report on, or analyze any FISA 
collection involving the Trump campaign or the Trump administration.

                              {time}  0915

  It also compelled the production of communications relating to 
defensive briefings provided by the Department of Justice or the FBI to 
the 2016 Presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.
  Finally, he compelled production of all documents and communications 
referring to proposed, recommended, or actual FISA coverage on the 
Clinton Foundation or persons associated or in communication with the 
Clinton Foundation. The deadline for this subpoena was April 5, 2018. 
The Department of Justice is in the process of complying with this 
subpoena, but complete compliance has not yet occurred.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that, in regard to the subpoena, the 
Department of Justice is trying to comply and is in the process of 
doing so but, yet, has not at this point.
  I also share the frustration of my colleagues and the American people 
that this process is taking way too long. We need the answers, and we 
need transparency. It is our duty to conduct oversight. The law charges 
us with shining light where the government has fostered shadows instead 
of providing answers. The Department of Justice has a responsibility to 
produce these documents and yet has not made them available.
  The resolution provided for by this rule speaks to the core of our 
democracy, the inherent tension between branches of government that our 
Founders intended and our responsibility as a coequal branch to act as 
a check upon the other branches.
  Could this debate not happen at a more appropriate time as we look 
toward the Fourth of July and our country's founding? This is why we 
were set up the way we were.
  The inherent tension has arisen most recently out of the Department 
of Justice's failure to timely comply with congressional oversight. 
Some of the documents this body seeks relate to congressional inquiries 
that have extended almost the length of the 115th Congress. They deal 
with some of the most pressing issues in our government today.
  Has the Department of Justice abused its FISA authority?
  Was an investigation of national importance affected by bias?
  I believe that these investigations need to play out, but I also 
believe they can't last forever. I also believe that evidence of bias, 
a library of extremely troubling texts, and key personnel removals at 
the FBI illustrate the heightened need for robust congressional 
oversight.
  As James Wilson, an architect of the Constitution and Associate 
Justice on the first Supreme Court so eloquently stated: ``The House of 
Representatives . . . form the grand inquest of the state. They will 
diligently inquire into grievances, arising both from men and things.'' 
As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I will continue to take that 
charge seriously.
  Yesterday, the Judiciary Committee considered a similar resolution. 
Today, the whole House has a chance to responsibly exercise its 
oversight responsibility and reiterate to the Department of Justice the 
need to fully comply with our legitimate requests.
  It is important to note that the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence has been similarly stymied by delays to requests for 
information and that certain documents have been provided to only 
select members of that committee.
  This resolution insists that the Department of Justice comply with 
the requests, including subpoenas, of these committees--one of which I 
proudly serve on--so that the American people can get answers and we 
can exercise our proper constitutional duties. The American people 
demanded answers, and that is why Congress, Representatives of the 
American people who answer to the American people, are demanding that 
the DOJ answer to us.
  Let this also serve as a reminder to the Department of Justice that 
the U.S. Congress was created by our Founders, and its authority and 
responsibility arise directly from Article I of the United States 
Constitution.
  The Department of Justice, on the other hand, was created by 
Congress. Its powers arise from those given to it by Congress. And just 
as those powers are given by Congress, it is Congress' responsibility 
to ensure that they are not abused; and, if necessary, it is Congress' 
responsibility to limit these powers.
  Woodrow Wilson, who was among the first to use the term ``oversight'' 
in reference to the investigation of the executive branch, stated:

       Quite as important as legislation is vigilant oversight of 
     the administration.

  Today, we show that we are taking oversight of the executive branch 
seriously, particularly the Department of Justice, and we are working 
to prevent bias in government. We demand accountability because the 
American people deserve no less.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Collins) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I hardly know where to begin. With all that is going on 
in the country and in the world--we have children being ripped apart 
from their families at the border; we have Republicans working with the 
White House trying to take away healthcare protections for the American 
people; and we have a President who seems unhinged--with all that is 
happening, this is what we are dealing with today on the House floor 
this morning. Basically, it is a resolution to try to undermine the 
Mueller investigation, which is investigating potential Russian 
involvement and collusion in our election.
  That is a big deal. We should all want to get to the bottom of this. 
We should all want the truth. Instead of wanting to get to the truth, 
my Republican friends throw roadblocks in the way, one after another 
after another, to try to get people to try to discredit the 
investigation and to try to derail the investigation. It is 
unbelievable to me.

  The President this morning tweeted that Russia continues to insist 
they had nothing to do with meddling in our election. I can't believe 
the President of the United States is tweeting that. What is wrong with 
him?
  Every single intelligence agency in our government says that the 
Russians meddled in our election, and we have the President of the 
United States this morning tweeting that Russia says they didn't do it, 
so we have got to believe Russia.

[[Page H5822]]

  I don't know how my friends can defend this. At some point, you have 
to say, ``Enough.''
  I get it. Republicans want to constantly circle the wagons around the 
President with every outrageous thing he says and does, but this is 
about a foreign power--an adversary--meddling in our elections.
  What is the response? Let's try to disparage the investigation. Let's 
try to undermine the investigation.
  It is unreal that we are going through this exercise today, but I 
guess we have come to expect this.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say, also, that the process in this House 
that got us here today to debate this resolution was a disgrace and an 
affront to the way this Chamber is supposed to conduct business. In all 
my time here, I haven't seen a committee minority of either party 
treated as disrespectfully as Democrats were on Tuesday. That is when 
the Judiciary Committee considered this resolution of inquiry.
  Democrats showed up on time and sat patiently waiting for this 
hearing to begin--and they waited, and they waited, and they waited 
because the Republican majority gaveled the hearing to order more than 
an hour after it was supposed to begin. They didn't even have the 
courtesy to tell the minority about the delay.
  Things got only worse from there. When the hearing actually got 
underway, Democrats were cut off at every turn. The Republican majority 
moved the previous question, cutting off debate and preventing 
consideration of Democratic amendments. They blocked parliamentary 
inquiries and a unanimous consent request. Committee Republicans even 
took the extraordinary step of overruling their chairman after an 
amendment was ruled out of order. It was heavy-handed, and it was 
undemocratic.
  My Republican colleagues should be ashamed of the way they conducted 
themselves. Maybe they are, because the chairman of the committee 
appeared to hide in the hallway during the vote until he was called by 
another Member, and when he did vote, he voted ``present.'' So did the 
Acting Chair.
  Mr. Speaker, were they unwilling to stand up to the more conservative 
elements of their caucus? or did they condone what went on?
  I don't see how anybody in this Chamber could endure such an 
embarrassing process. It is unfortunate that the majority of the Rules 
Committee essentially enabled it by using emergency procedures to 
quickly move this resolution.
  This is a new low for a majority that has already turned this 
Congress into the most closed Congress in history. There have already 
been 89 closed rules this Congress, and it is only June. There has not 
been a single open rule under Speaker Ryan--not one.
  It is fitting that this measure from the Judiciary Committee is being 
considered under the majority's 90th closed rule because the Judiciary 
Committee is now the second most closed committee in this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, what does the majority have to show for this bad 
process? We have another bad product here, this time a partisan measure 
meant to undermine the Russia investigation.
  Now, we know this isn't a serious attempt at oversight because the 
Republican majority apparently doesn't believe in fulfilling its 
oversight responsibilities to begin with. Republicans have refused, for 
example, to examine foreign payments to the Trump organization. They 
refuse to examine extravagant travel by members of the administration. 
They refuse to examine HUD Secretary Carson's $31,000 dining set.
  Who buys a $31,000 dining set? Where do you find a $31,000 dining 
set?
  They refuse to investigate the use of private email by administration 
officials, including Jared Kushner and Stephen Miller, and countless 
other scandals involving EPA Administrator Pruitt.
  The list goes on and on and on and on. We actually have a long list 
here, Mr. Speaker, of what we should be investigating. If my Republican 
colleagues would like a copy, I am happy to provide it to them. But 
suffice it to say, there is no oversight with regard to the misdeeds of 
this administration.
  Mr. Speaker, what happened to the Republicans' zeal for oversight? 
Former Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Issa 
subpoenaed the Obama administration more than 100 times in just a 4-
year span. I didn't always agree with him on his investigations, but at 
least the Oversight and Government Reform Committee was performing some 
oversight.
  Republicans today are completely missing in action under President 
Trump. This is an administration that has been embroiled in one scandal 
after the next. It is an administration dripping with corruption. This 
makes the Nixon administration look like Common Cause. I have never 
seen anything like it. Apparently, the Republicans only believe in 
oversight if it involves President Obama or Secretary Clinton.
  Let me remind my Republican colleagues that there wasn't a single 
scandal in President Obama's 8 years in office that implicated him: no 
Cabinet official was forced to resign in scandal; no senior White House 
official had to leave in the face of wrongdoing. Only with the Trump 
administration can you have one scandal start at breakfast only to have 
another one by the time you sit down for dinner.
  We should be doing our job--getting to the bottom of what is 
happening and holding people accountable--but instead we are throwing 
sand in the gears of the Russia investigation. This is crazy.
  Now, let me remind everyone of what Special Counsel Mueller's 
investigation has yielded so far.

  Twenty people and three companies have either been indicted or pled 
guilty. That includes George Papadopoulos, foreign policy adviser on 
President Trump's campaign, who pled guilty to making false statements 
to the FBI; Michael Flynn, the President's former National Security 
Advisor, who also pled guilty to making false statements to the FBI.
  Paul Manafort, his former campaign chair, was indicted on charges of 
conspiracy, money laundering, and making false statements. He was later 
also charged with tax, financial, and bank fraud charges. He is sitting 
in jail today. As we have this debate right now, Paul Manafort is in 
jail.
  Rick Gates, the President's campaign aid, was also indicted on 
similar charges.
  That is just a small sample based on what we know today. We will see 
what else the Special Counsel's investigation finds.
  So this goes beyond your basic policy disagreements. This is about 
whether the minority in this Congress is allowed to do the job they 
were elected to do--not just this Democratic minority, but any 
minority, because we have seen and we could see again this year just 
how quickly power shifts in Congress. This is about whether this 
Congress is going to fulfill its oversight responsibilities or sweep 
possible wrongdoing under the rug.
  Now, we have a chance today to demand better from this majority, so 
we should vote against this rule and demand a better process. That is 
the only way we are going to see a better product.
  Just one final thing before I reserve my time. I say to my Republican 
friends: Look at what you are doing to this institution. You are 
destroying it. Not only the closed process, the most closed Congress in 
the history of our country, but the way you move legislation forward. 
The way Democrats in the Judiciary Committee were treated on this 
resolution, in all my years here, I have never seen anything like it.
  I get it. We have a President who wants to behave like a king and who 
thinks, when he speaks, everybody should sit up to attention just like 
they do when Kim Jong-un speaks. But this is supposed to be the 
people's House, and you are diminishing this institution. This has to 
stop.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mitchell). Members are reminded to 
refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. At this point in time, as the gentleman from 
Massachusetts and I have discussed many times--and he has his opinions 
on things and process; I have mine as well--we can agree and disagree. 
But I think one thing is let's take a step forward today.
  This is a process of what we are doing forward. We are warning and 
requiring

[[Page H5823]]

from an Article I to an Article II agency. Let's do that and continue 
that process.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as I said in the beginning, there are a 
whole bunch of troubling things happening in our country today. The 
Supreme Court's Janus decision was just yet another very disturbing 
development that really attacks working men and women.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. Speaker, a union's ability to collectively bargain benefits both 
its members and nonmembers alike. Unions are responsible for many of 
the worker protections Americans enjoy today, and they continue to 
fight for fair pay and good working conditions, including for 17.3 
million public employees.
  We have unions to thank for our weekends, for paid vacations, for 
overtime pay, for the 8-hour workday, for child labor laws, for 
pensions, for the minimum wage, for sick leave, for Social Security, 
for parental leave, for holiday pay, and the list goes on and on and 
on.
  However, yesterday, the Supreme Court dealt a devastating blow to 
hardworking employees, the unions that represent them, and the 
protections they provide us. In a 5-4 ideological decision, the Court 
invalidated the laws of 22 States and undermined public sector unions. 
This decision enables free-riding by those who benefit from union 
agreements but do not want to help cover the costs of collective 
bargaining and enforcement.
  Unions fight for every single worker. Therefore, every worker should 
pay their fair share.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Cartwright's 
legislation, H.R. 6238, the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act. 
This bill protects the rights of State and local government employees 
to join unions and collectively bargain.
  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 Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright) to discuss his proposal.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I represent a district in northeast 
Pennsylvania where collective bargaining rights are time-honored and 
highly valued. The work our unions have done over the past 100-plus 
years has changed our laws and practices that helped create our strong 
American middle class. Our middle class is something that really makes 
us the envy of the free world, and American unions keep the middle 
class strong.
  Today, public sector unions represent about 17.3 million workers in 
State and local governments across the country. These public sector 
workers keep us safe and teach and nurture our children, care for our 
families. As union members, they are empowered through collective 
action to fight for fair wages and work conditions, as Mr. McGovern 
mentioned.
  But yesterday, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against 
unions in the case of Janus v. AFSCME. They overturned four decades--40 
years--of legal precedent to undermine the rights of correctional 
officers, State and local policemen, firefighters, snowplow drivers, 
teachers, all the local government employees that work hard for us and 
make us safe every day.
  The Court's decision invalidates the laws of 22 States and the 
District of Columbia. These are States that decided to allow unions and 
State employees mutually to agree on ensuring that employees pay a fair 
share fee to cover the costs of collective bargaining enforcement.
  This Court's decision is nothing but bare-knuckled politics. In fact, 
prominent Republican politicians have already described it and praised 
it as a devastating blow to Democrats. It is not jurisprudence; it is 
just politics.
  When you overturn 40 years of American legal precedent, when you rip 
up 40 years of the fabric of American law, it is a big deal.
  Associate Justice Kagan described it yesterday as a weaponization of 
the First Amendment that has been going on. And she is right. This 
decision comes at a time when hardworking Americans are fighting every 
day just to pay their bills and support their families. Labor unions 
are working hard to give workers a collective voice to gain higher 
wages, better healthcare, and a secure retirement.
  Make no mistake, a tax on public-sector unions is the camel's nose 
under the tent flap. They are coming after private sector unions next.
  Strong public unions build the middle class in our country and shape 
the life of every American by negotiating for labor rights, including 
the minimum wage, 8-hour workdays, weekends, employer health insurance.
  Now is not the time to turn our back on American workers and labor 
unions. Now is the time to stand with employees who serve the public 
across the country.
  For that reason, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up my bill, H.R. 6238, the Public 
Service Freedom to Negotiate Act, a bill that will defend the right of 
every public sector employee to join a union and bargain collectively.
  The bill empowers the Federal Labor Relations Authority to ensure 
that State and local government employees are treated fairly and that 
workplace conditions meet a proper standard. Every employee deserves 
these basic standards, whether they choose to join a union or not.
  Again, the Janus decision is an outright attack on all unions, on all 
working people, and an attack on the cause that we here in Congress, 
here in the people's House, fight for every day.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and 
the rule so that this important legislation will be considered 
immediately.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from the gentleman how many 
more speakers he has.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers. If the 
gentleman is ready to close, I will be as well.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, there are lots of things that 
we should be doing oversight on and that they we are not.

  The Oversight Committee has chosen not to look into all the scandals 
in this White House. They have chosen instead to look the other way.
  I mentioned EPA Administrator Pruitt. He has demonstrated over and 
over that he has no regard for taxpayer money. He is living a lifestyle 
of the rich and famous at EPA. He has no respect for his position and 
no desire to follow our ethics law. His many abuses of his position 
demand that we fully investigate his actions.
  For example--I love this--he spent $43,000 on installing a soundproof 
booth in his office. Who does that? GAO stated that he was required to 
notify Congress before spending more than $5,000 on office 
improvements, but he goes ahead and spends $43,000 on a soundproof 
booth, I guess to make private phone calls. He racked up nearly 
$200,000 flying first class and luxury aircraft on the taxpayers' dime. 
One of those trips was to Italy. It cost $30,000. He rented an 
apartment from an energy lobbyist for $50 a night here in Washington. 
He enlisted an aide to help find his wife a job.
  You can't make this stuff up. And crickets from the Oversight 
Committee and my Republican friends in Congress.
  Congress needs to investigate the alarming drug price trends in this 
country. This is an emergency, a life or death issue for our 
constituents. Because of high drug prices, one in four Americans cannot 
afford to fill a prescription. These high drug prices are not due to 
foreign markets, but they are due to our unfair pricing system.
  We issue patents to drug companies, allowing them to have exclusive 
rights on drugs. Make no mistake, patents are important for 
incentivizing and rewarding innovation. However, drug companies found 
ways to game the system by prolonging their patents and continuing 
their tight hold on lifesaving medications.
  A study by UCLA found that 74 percent of new patents from 2005 to 
2015

[[Page H5824]]

went to drugs that already existed. Patents allow these drug companies 
to charge patients unfair prices without facing competition. That is 
just unacceptable.
  But I guess we shouldn't be surprised that there is no investigation, 
because my Republican friends are working with this White House to 
undue patient protections in the Affordable Care Act. They are even 
trying to take away preexisting condition protections.
  Right now, because of the law, if you have a preexisting condition, 
an insurance company cannot discriminate against you and demand that 
you pay more. They have to give you the insurance. They want to take 
that away. This is unbelievable. We should be investigating this stuff.
  I could go on and on and on, but we are not doing that. What we are 
doing is, we are bringing a resolution that has been put forward by 
some who are trying to undermine the Mueller investigation and who do 
not want the American people to focus on the involvement between Trump 
operatives and the Russians.
  When I would go up to Massachusetts on the weekends, it used to be 
that people would ask me who in the Trump administration met with the 
Russians. Now the question is: Who in the Trump administration didn't 
meet with the Russians?
  What I love about the people who are testifying before the Mueller 
committee, they now are getting in trouble because they are realizing 
that, if you lie, there is a consequence, so they all have amnesia. 
They met with Russian operatives time and again, and they forget. They 
mysteriously remember when they are confronted with the evidence.
  We all should be shocked by this. A foreign adversary interfered in 
our election. Every single intelligence agency in our government 
confirms that. And yet you have the President of the United States 
today tweeting: Oh, Russia insists they didn't meddle in our election.
  Oh, my God, I can't believe this. The President of the United States 
is tweeting that today. It is shameful. Stop defending this 
unacceptable behavior, and stop defending a process that is 
unacceptable as well.
  I mentioned the terrible treatment Democrats received in the 
Judiciary Committee when this thing was reported out. I have never seen 
anything like that in my life. Democrats waited for an hour and they 
were just shut out of any opportunity to amend the measure or even 
speak.
  Welcome to the United States Congress. This is supposed to be the 
people's House. This is supposed to be the shining example of 
democracy, and you get people who have questions or who have ideas who 
are shut down in committee.
  Then we bring it to the floor after going through the Rules Committee 
last night, and it comes to the floor under a closed process. This is 
the most closed Congress in history. This is the 90th closed rule.
  What does that mean? It means that this legislation cannot be 
amended. There is limited debate. You have to vote for it up or down, 
my way or the highway. Everybody, Democrats and Republicans, are 
blocked from offering any of their ideas or any of their potential 
improvements to this bill. Nothing.
  This is the 90th closed rule, completely closed rule, in this 
Congress, the 90th bill that has come before us where neither Democrats 
nor Republicans can offer anything.
  It is frustrating beyond words to be here today. The system here is 
rigged. This is going to pass on a party-line vote, I guess. But this 
is not the way the people's House should be run. This is disgraceful. 
At some point, my Republican friends who care about this institution 
have to say enough is enough. They have to demand a more open, more 
transparent system here. This cannot stand.
  So, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, so 
we can address the terrible impacts of the Supreme Court decision in 
the Janus case and vote ``no'' on the rule. We should not be doing this 
today. We should not be engaged in an attempt to try to defend 
the indefensible or undermine an important investigation into Russia's 
meddling in our election.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we can discuss this and continue to discuss it, as we 
have.
  I respect my friend from Massachusetts and his opinion and the issues 
of transparency. I want to see that same transparency. I want to see us 
work. And I think we have an opportunity to do that. By saying that we 
bring this rule and this resolution here today, to disparage this 
institution, when we are asking for what we are required and can't get, 
I am not sure how that is.
  Now, we can discuss other issues you want to investigate and other 
areas you want to go to, and you can do that and we can discuss things, 
but there is nothing undermining the investigation. The Mueller 
investigation is still going on, the FBI investigation. All of that is 
still going on. Nothing is undermining it except the DOJ that has had 
obvious issues of telling the truth and obvious issues of not giving us 
the documents we have requested. This is Article I, Article II.
  We can have discussions about everything else. And I know if I were 
in a position on the other side, I would want everything investigated, 
because when you have seen what we have been able to do in the last 
year and a half with the economy, with jobs, with regulations, with 
small business, when you start looking at that, I would yell at 
everything else, too, Mr. Speaker, because the President has done what 
he said he was going to do. And our economy is better, our jobs are 
better, and we are working toward a system in which America is safer.
  But I would also want to investigate everything else, too, because if 
I was going into a cycle, I would want to throw off and look other 
places and tell the American people things aren't really right when 
they know that it is.

                              {time}  0945

  Also, the American people, when I go back home to Georgia, want to 
know: If the Congress asks an agency for documents, why do they not get 
to produce them?
  And don't go to the fact, well, it is classified.
  We have SCIFs up here. We have got classified areas up here. What is 
problematic here is we are hiding behind the fact of things that look 
like--after they are produced, after they are compelled to produce--it 
looks like they are just trying to keep it from us to hide 
embarrassment, and that is not a reason to hide documents.
  So we have a simple proposal here. Do what you are required to do. 
Let Congress be the oversight that it is supposed to be, and we can 
discuss whatever else we want to for oversight. That is the part of two 
parties working.
  But in this one, this is pretty simple. You can vote ``no'' and say 
no, Congress shouldn't do that, in an area in which we have 
responsibility and oversight protection. If you want to do that, go 
right ahead.
  Again, when you want to throw off everything else in the world--I 
think it is when you look at the President and you look at the 
administration and you look at what we have done in the last 18\1/2\ 
months, you see a light at the end of a tunnel, you see an economy 
coming back, you see a good thing for businesses and small businesses.
  When people get up and do not care, Mr. Speaker, what happens on this 
floor. They really don't. All they want to do is get up in the morning, 
get their families ready, pay their bills, get a good job, have a 
possibility of a promotion, or go start that business they want to 
have. We have provided that.
  Now, up here, in the internal workings of government, in the mesh of 
web that is inside this beltway, when you have got a government agency 
and government employees who do not want to do what they are supposed 
to do, it is time for Congress to act. That is exactly what we are 
doing today.
  John Stuart Mill stated: ``The proper office of a representative 
assembly is to watch and control the government, to throw the light of 
publicity on its acts, to compel a full exposition and justification of 
all of them which any one considers questionable.''
  Today the Republicans in the House are doing that, Mr. Speaker. We 
are taking our oversight responsibilities seriously. We are abiding by 
the checks

[[Page H5825]]

and balances of the Constitution to ensure that the government is 
acting appropriately to ensure that the American people--who, by the 
way, we represent--have the answers that they deserve, one way or the 
other.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 971 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     6238) to secure the rights of public employees to organize, 
     act, concertedly, and bargain collectively, which safeguard 
     the public interest and promote the free and unobstructed 
     flow of commerce, 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 Education and the 
     Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the 
     Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to 
     no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day 
     the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the 
     Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 6238.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. 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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 186, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 304]

                               YEAS--224

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     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
     Guthrie
     Handel
     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, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     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
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     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--186

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     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
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     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)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack

[[Page H5826]]


     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)
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Barletta
     Black
     Blumenauer
     Brady (TX)
     Buck
     Costello (PA)
     Ellison
     Grothman
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Labrador
     Richmond
     Rush
     Schweikert
     Thompson (MS)
     Tsongas
     Walz

                              {time}  1011

  Messrs. VELA, PETERSON, Ms. PINGREE, and Mrs. DEMINGS changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. KINZINGER, NUNES, POE of Texas, and BANKS of Indiana 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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224, 
noes 184, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 305]

                               AYES--224

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     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
     Guthrie
     Handel
     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, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     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
     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--184

     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)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (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)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Barletta
     Barton
     Black
     Brady (TX)
     Buck
     Cartwright
     Cicilline
     Costello (PA)
     Ellison
     Grothman
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Labrador
     Pelosi
     Rush
     Scott (VA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tsongas
     Walz

                              {time}  1019

  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.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, due to an unavoidable scheduling 
conflict, I was unable to cast my vote.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 304 
and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 305.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 304 and 
``yea'' on rollcall No. 305.

                          ____________________