[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15865-15871]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1422, EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD 
 REFORM ACT OF 2013; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4012, SECRET 
 SCIENCE REFORM ACT OF 2014; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4795, 
 PROMOTING NEW MANUFACTURING ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING 
      THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 21, 2014, THROUGH NOVEMBER 28, 2014

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 756 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 756

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1422) to 
     amend the Environmental Research, Development, and 
     Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to provide for 
     Scientific Advisory Board member qualifications, public 
     participation, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Science, Space, and Technology 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 Science, Space, and Technology; 
     (2) the further amendment printed in part A of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if 
     offered by Representative Stewart of Utah or his designee, 
     which shall be in order without intervention of any point of 
     order, shall be considered as read, shall be separately 
     debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a 
     demand for division of the question; and (3) one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     4012) to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from 
     proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or 
     assessments based upon science that is not transparent or 
     reproducible. 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 Science, Space, and Technology. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 113-57. That 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment 
     may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may 
     be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 
     be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time 
     specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, 
     and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All 
     points of order against such amendments are waived. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     4795) to promote new manufacturing in the United States by 
     providing for greater transparency and timeliness in 
     obtaining necessary permits, 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 Energy and 
     Commerce. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in 
     order except those printed in part C of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 4.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     November 21, 2014, through November 28, 2014--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 5.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BURGESS. 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. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 756 provides for the 
consideration of three important pieces of legislation to create a more 
transparent and accountable Environmental Protection Agency, one that 
works in an open manner for all of America. The rule provides for 1 
hour of debate for each of the three bills contained within the rule. 
Further, amendments were made in order for each of the three bills for 
a total of five amendments from Members of both parties.
  Mr. Speaker, the first bill contained in this rule, H.R. 1422, the 
EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013, brings greater 
accountability and greater oversight to the board of appointed advisors 
which the EPA uses to

[[Page 15866]]

review the scientific bases for its official actions. Created in the 
late 1970s, the Science Advisory Board was intended to be a check on 
the EPA in order to ensure that the Agency's math and the Agency's 
statistics were all in order before it promulgated rules or 
regulations.
  In fact, the original authorization for the board made clear that the 
Science Advisory Board was to report both to the EPA and to Congress on 
its findings. However, over the course of the past several decades 
since its inception, the Science Advisory Board has become little more 
than a rubberstamp for whatever the EPA Administrator wishes to 
accomplish, with the board members being handpicked by the 
Administrator, likely being chosen primarily on the basis that they 
hold the same environmental worldview as whoever the head of the EPA 
happens to be at any given point in time.
  The bill before us would provide for a more balanced representation 
on the Science Advisory Board, setting out parameters regarding whom 
the Administrator can choose and ensuring that State and local 
governments have representation on the board so that they are not 
simply relegated to environmental activists, which, unfortunately, has 
been the case for some time now.

                              {time}  1230

  Indeed, current regulations exclude industry experts from serving on 
the Science Advisory Board, but not officials from environmental 
advocacy groups. The new regulations are necessary to ensure against 
any appearance of impropriety on the board.
  This legislation becomes even more critical when one considers the 
numerous regulations that the Environmental Protection Agency is 
currently contemplating, which could have significant impacts upon the 
Nation's economy.
  From proposed carbon regulations to ratcheting down ozone 
regulations, the Science Advisory Board has been tasked with reviewing 
the science that will back up some of the most expensive rules in the 
Environmental Protection Agency's history.
  It is critical the American people have confidence in what their 
Federal Government is doing and confidence that it is justified. I fear 
that, absent any significant reform to the EPA's process, that is 
currently not the case.
  The second bill contained in this rule, H.R. 4012, the Secret Science 
Reform Act, is also intended to make the Environmental Protection 
Agency's rulemaking process more transparent, a goal that at one time 
was supposedly shared by the President.
  The legislation states that the Environmental Protection Agency may 
take official action on an environmental regulation only if it has 
identified all scientific and technical information upon which the 
Agency has relied for that particular action, and further, it must use 
only publicly available studies and can thus be independently peer 
reviewed. This would bring the EPA's process in line with how many 
scientific journals operate when they publish peer-reviewed studies.
  Further, the bill is prospective and will not interfere with any 
previously-enacted rules or regulations by the EPA. To address concerns 
expressed during the Science Committee's consideration of the bill, the 
legislation spells out that nothing in these requirements would 
jeopardize any privacy concerns with scientific studies.
  The CDC has successfully made its studies available without exposing 
any of its test subjects' personal information, and the EPA should have 
no problem similarly complying with these requirements.
  Finally, H.R. 4795, the Promoting New Manufacturing Act, the third 
bill included in the rule before us today, provides for greater 
transparency and would cut much of the red tape surrounding the 
permitting process for manufacturers attempting to comply with the 
Clean Air Act's requirements.
  It would require the EPA to publish guidance on how companies may 
more efficiently obtain construction permits and navigate what is often 
a lengthy and arduous process.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans are waking up to how much of the United States 
economy is subject to the EPA and its regulations, from carbon dioxide 
to ozone, and people are rightly anxious over how these new and, in 
some cases, unprecedented rules will affect consumers' wallets.
  It is reasonable and expeditious to ensure that the science upon 
which the EPA is relying to craft its regulations will be transparent 
and available to all and not just a select few who the EPA deems worthy 
to see its work products.
  Even the congressional committees who are charged with legitimate 
oversight over EPA's actions have had difficulty in obtaining basic 
scientific justifications for its actions over the past few years. The 
bills before us today will begin the process of making the EPA 
accountable to the very constituency the Agency claims to be 
protecting, the American people.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and 
``yes'' on the underlying bills, and I will reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Burgess) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thought one of the lessons of this last election was 
that the American people wanted Washington to work, that they wanted us 
to work toward passing legislation, sensible legislation, that could be 
passed in both Chambers, that could go to the White House and be signed 
into law, and we could move this country forward, but I guess that 
lesson somehow escaped my Republican colleagues because what we are 
doing here today is another colossal waste of time.
  Now, I rise in opposition to this rule, and I rise in opposition to 
the underlying legislation. The points of the bills that we are 
considering today seek to prevent the EPA from protecting public health 
and the environment. It is that simple.
  The White House has already issued three veto threats against these 
bills. The other body is not going to take these bills up, so here we 
are in this lameduck session with a lot of work that we should be 
doing, and instead, we are doing this.
  On December 11, this government will run out of money. Maybe we 
should be spending some time trying to figure out how to avoid another 
government shutdown or to do the appropriations process in a more 
thoughtful way, but instead, my colleagues are going to wait until the 
last minute and bring a bill to the floor that most Members will not 
have time to read, and then that will be that.
  Maybe we should be talking about passing an increase in the minimum 
wage. We are reading story after story about how income inequality in 
this country is getting bigger and bigger and bigger. Maybe we ought to 
make sure that work actually pays a livable wage in this country, or 
maybe we could pass a pay equity bill so that women can earn equal pay 
for equal work--we are not doing any of that--and that surely would be 
signed by the White House.
  What about an immigration bill? The United States Senate passed in a 
bipartisan way a comprehensive immigration bill, dealing with a very 
important problem in this country. It is supported by labor unions, and 
it is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and again, it had a 
bipartisan vote in the United States Senate.
  Are we doing that here today? No. We can't even bring that to the 
floor to have a debate because the leadership in this House runs such a 
closed process.
  We have wasted time in this Chamber debating Republican messaging 
bills to repeal the Affordable Care Act, to undermine the Dodd-Frank 
financial reform law, and weaken public health and environmental 
regulations while failing to consider legislation to help people, to 
create jobs, to boost the economy and help vulnerable Americans rise 
out of poverty, so instead of kind of doing the people's business, we 
are back into Republican messaging bills again.
  The three bills that we are talking about here today--H.R. 4795, H.R. 
4012, and H.R. 1422--will allow industry to

[[Page 15867]]

have a greater influence over the policies developed at the EPA, will 
weaken our air quality, and prevent the EPA from using critical high-
quality and peer-reviewed data in their policy development.
  Why in the world would we want to do this? Well, because the 
Republicans' corporate constituency demand it, so this may be a nice 
way to thank big Republican donors for their support in the last 
election, but quite frankly, it is lousy policy.
  H.R. 4795, the cleverly named Promoting New Manufacturing Act, does 
nothing to boost manufacturing and does nothing to help improve the 
permitting process or create jobs. The bill requires the EPA to issue 
both regulations and guidance concurrently when issuing national 
ambient air quality standards. If this requirement is not met, a new or 
expanding facility must only show it complies with the old insufficient 
standard.
  Not only will this legislation create several new avenues for 
litigation, but it will also weaken air quality protections and 
threaten public health. Why in the world would we even contemplate 
doing that? H.R. 4012, the Secret Science Reform Act, will prevent the 
EPA from using the best available scientific data, harm future 
research, and delay the implementation of public health protections.
  Far from protecting transparency and accountability, this bill will 
limit the body of high-quality scientific research that can be used and 
will undermine the EPA's ability to function.
  The EPA relies on peer-reviewed scientific research that often 
contains information scientists are legally required to keep 
confidential, like an individual's health records. How is the EPA 
supposed to determine the effects of a pollutant on our health if they 
are not allowed to look at health data?
  Individual health records should be highly protected, and I would 
like to point out that the peer-reviewed studies that form the basis of 
EPA's actions are already available.
  The purpose of this bill is not to create transparency but to create 
bureaucracy, to make it impossible for the EPA to develop policies to 
protect our health and our environment. There is no secret science, 
just science that my Republican colleagues do not like.
  I am pleased to see that the amendment to H.R. 4012, submitted by my 
good friend from Massachusetts, Joe Kennedy, was made in order. I 
strongly support this amendment, which would allow the EPA to continue 
to rely upon peer-reviewed scientific data, even if that data is 
legally required to be kept private. The EPA must be allowed to 
continue to use this critical data in their policy development.
  Lastly, H.R. 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act, will 
slow down the EPA's ability to develop regulations and effectively 
force the EPA to include individuals with financial conflicts on the 
Science Advisory Board, so long as the conflicts are disclosed.
  It isn't logical to include an individual on a decisionmaking board 
if that individual would be financially affected by its decision.
  I should note that the legislation limits the participation of 
academic scientists with relevant subject matter expertise from 
providing their advice to EPA, which will lead to panels with 
disproportionately high amounts of industry representation.
  This bill would allow the Republicans' corporate constituency a 
direct route to disrupting the EPA's ability to create regulations 
designed to protect our health.
  I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, ``I get 
it. You don't like science, and you don't like science that interferes 
with some of the interests of your corporate clients.''
  But we need to rely on science so we can protect the public health 
and we can protect our environment. One of the main jobs that we are 
tasked with is to protect our constituencies. So why we would be trying 
to move ourselves back in a direction that would endanger public health 
is beyond me.
  Mr. Speaker, today, we are considering three bills to undermine 
public health, hurt the environment, and tie up the EPA in red tape. I 
would, again, say to my colleagues, ``We are going to have this debate 
here today. These bills aren't going anywhere. We are wasting our time 
by doing this today.''
  I am just going to close with one other issue that we ought to be 
talking about. In July, a majority in this House supported an amendment 
that I had offered, saying that if in fact we had sustained combat 
operations in Iraq, that Congress would vote to authorize, or not, such 
action.
  Well, clearly, we have sustained combat operations going on in Iraq. 
We are getting sucked deeper and deeper and deeper into war while this 
Congress sits and twiddles its thumbs and does everything possible to 
avoid a debate on whether or not we should be involved in another war.
  You know what, there are thousands of Americans that have been put in 
harm's way, and we are not living up to our constitutional 
responsibility. Surely, we should be spending some time talking about 
that, whether or not the United States ought to get sucked into another 
war halfway around the world, a war that will cost American lives and 
that will continue to cost a great deal in terms of our national 
treasure, but instead of debating that and other things that really 
matter to people, we are doing it on a messaging bill.
  I regret the fact that here we are in these few days that we have 
left in this lameduck session, doing this kind of stuff, when we ought 
to be doing the people's business.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this restrictive 
rule, vote against all of the underlying legislation, and I plead to 
the Republican leadership: let's bring something to the floor that will 
help the American people.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I am delighted to yield 3 
minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the 
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), and I really appreciated his statement on this rule today.
  Mr. Speaker, once again, you would think that we would almost expect 
that nothing good would happen here, and I am rising with a very heavy 
heart today because nothing good is happening in my office as well 
because, today, we are seeing the last rule worked on by my friend Don 
Sisson, who has been with us here for over 10 years, works 
extraordinarily well in the Rules Committee, has provided us with 
outstanding service, and really has an integral part that he is going 
to be playing over at the White House. This means a significant loss 
for us.

                              {time}  1245

  He has accepted a new job as the Special Assistant to the President 
for Legislative Affairs. And while I really want to wish him well, to 
be perfectly honest with you, it is breaking my heart to see him go.
  Don is not only an expert on the rules and a computer genius, and 
when anything electrical goes awry, Don can fix it in a moment, but Don 
is a caretaker. He not only takes great care about the rules, his work, 
and everyone on the committee whom he really loved and enjoyed working 
with, he takes care of people individually, and he has certainly done 
that for me.
  I had a pretty bad year this past year losing my husband, and Don was 
always there. If electricity didn't work or something else didn't 
happen, Don knew who could fix that for me. So as I speak about it, my 
personal feelings overwhelm the wonderful opportunity for him as a 
young man to work in the White House of the United States Government 
with the President.
  I would like to go over his credentials here, but I am not going to. 
I am simply going to tell you that Don is one of the best people that 
ever worked in the United States House of Representatives and one of 
the finest persons on the Rules Committee who understands not only 
rules, but is a friend

[[Page 15868]]

to every single person who works in this House and beyond. He could 
always be counted on as a friend, as someone with extraordinarily 
gifted intelligence, and as being able to work his way through the most 
dangerous Gordian Knot. Don Sisson is a ``man for all seasons.''
  Mr. Speaker, I wish him the very best of everything, but say to you 
that, without a doubt, the loss for our side, for our office, and for 
our friends is profound. Nonetheless, he is going to go. I just want 
the White House to understand what a jewel they are getting.
  Thank you very much, Mr. McGovern, for yielding me the time.
  Thank you, Don, for your service, and you will always have a place 
here in this House. Thank you very much.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to join the gentlewoman from New York 
in congratulating Don Sisson for his new position at the White House 
Office of Legislative Affairs and certainly look forward to working 
with him. I actually am somewhat comforted to know that there is an 
Office of Legislative Affairs in the White House and look forward to 
his occupying that position.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to also join with the ranking member in honoring Don Sisson. As she 
mentions, this will be his last day on the floor. I think his last day 
is this week.
  Mr. Speaker, Don has been working for the Rules Committee for 10 
years under both Republicans and Democrats. He is a native of upstate 
New York, and he has been around for historic debates in Congress and 
has been an integral part of the Rules Committee staff for many, many, 
many years. As Ms. Slaughter pointed out, he will be moving on to the 
White House, and we are going to miss him dearly.
  I think it is important for all of us to take a moment just to 
recognize that Don represents the best, I think, of the staff that work 
here. He is up here for all the right reasons. He wants to make the 
world a better place, and he has shown this great ability to work 
across party lines and to build things and make things happen. I know 
he will use those skills in his new position at the White House.
  Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee meets an awful lot, and we are 
together an awful lot, and so we are all family. So when somebody 
leaves, it is painful because it is like a family member moving on and 
going someplace else. So we are going to miss Don, but he won't be that 
far away. We will work with him in a new capacity.
  On behalf of everybody on that committee, members and staff included, 
I think we all owe you a debt of gratitude, and we are grateful for 
your service. You have served this institution with great honor and 
dignity, and we wish you all the best in your new job. So thank you 
very much for a job well done.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to announce to my colleagues 
that I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question, and if we 
do, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to 
continue the ATTIRE Act. This bill would support textile research and 
innovation in the United States and will continue to strengthen the 
Made in America Movement as a conduit for creating American jobs and 
bolstering our economy. It is the right way to help create American 
jobs.
  To discuss our proposal, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the ATTIRE Act, which we will offer 
as an amendment to the rule if the previous question is defeated.
  The most notable aspect of the majority's so-called manufacturing 
bills before us is their lack of ambition and vision. They are simply 
messaging bills.
  So we have an alternative to put forward, a bill that already has 
broad support in this body. The bill would support textile research and 
innovation in the United States, strengthening the Make It In America 
movement as an instrument for creating American jobs, bolstering our 
economy, and improving our international competitiveness.
  The ATTIRE Act would establish a Department of Commerce grant program 
to fund textile research, supporting innovation in the U.S. textile and 
fiber products industry. The bill is fully paid for. Although our 
Nation's manufacturing base has suffered major losses over the last 20 
years, the American textile industry continues to employ over 500,000 
workers across the country and contributes nearly $60 billion to our 
gross domestic product annually.
  Even in the face of an economic downturn, the industry continues to 
thrive and adapt to the competitive global marketplace by remaining at 
the cutting edge of innovations in textile and fiber technologies. 
Despite all this, there is currently no dedicated source of Federal 
funding for research into new textile applications and market 
opportunities.
  Mr. Speaker, some of our colleagues may need to be disabused of the 
notion that the textile industry is old or inflexible or in decline. 
That is an undeserved reputation. The fact is our Nation's leading 
textile research universities, research institutes, and textile firms 
that have been quick to follow up on research findings have made 
remarkable progress, particularly in the areas of nonwoven fabrics. 
They have developed innovative technologies and materials with 
applications in industries as varied as aerospace, biomedical, and 
alternative energy.
  The applications for advanced textiles in the areas of defense and 
homeland security, notably for first responders, are especially 
promising. I am referring to major advances in heat-resistant clothing, 
bacteria-resistant microfibers, and nanofibers able to conduct 
electricity and capture solar energy.
  Additional advances are promised by new manufacturing, processing, 
and fitting technologies currently under development. Such advances in 
processing hold the promise of ``reshoring'' many of those textile jobs 
lost over the past 20 years to low-wage countries.
  Mr. Speaker, Federal support for textile research isn't a new idea. 
Between 1986 and 2010, the Department of Commerce provided consistent 
and ongoing annual support for textile research conducted by entities 
such as the National Textile Center, a research partnership of eight 
universities, and TC-Squared, a leading industry consortium.
  Since 2010, however, the Department has not provided any comparable 
source of funding for advanced technical research, largely because 
Congress has not provided that funding. Industry stakeholders as varied 
as high-end athletic and outdoor apparel companies, aerospace 
manufacturers, defense contractors, and defense textile manufacturers 
all recognize the importance of Federal support for advanced textile 
research.
  So instead of spending time on shortsighted legislation undermining 
the EPA's ability to do its job, we should instead be focusing on 
forward-thinking manufacturing and economic policy to improve our 
Nation's international competitiveness. With our support, U.S. 
manufacturers and workers will dominate the 21st century global economy 
as they did in the 20th century.
  Mr. Speaker, if colleagues want to do something serious to help 
American manufacturers and workers, then we should support this bill. 
It is as simple as that.
  I urge defeat of the previous question.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from the gentleman if he has 
additional speakers besides himself?
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we had one other speaker who is not here, 
but in light of that, I will close.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I am going to ask my colleagues to 
vote

[[Page 15869]]

against the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, we 
will make in order the ATTIRE Act that Mr. Price so carefully described 
to all of us here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with the 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, let me just say in closing that it is 
frustrating to be back after the election and to kind of engage in the 
same old-same old Republican partisan messaging bills that are going 
nowhere that just waste time. We ought to do the people's business in 
the next campaign which is about to start in a little while.
  The fact that we are back here not debating this conflict that is now 
going on in the Middle East, the fact that we are not debating an 
immigration bill, the fact that we are not debating a pay equity bill 
or a minimum wage bill and we are doing this is very discouraging.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
send a strong statement today and vote ``no'' on this rule and 
certainly vote ``no'' on the previous question. I would also urge, if 
the rule passes, that we vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation. We 
have a lot of work to do. What we are doing here today does not 
constitute that work, and I regret it very much.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of three 
important bills to provide for open and transparent rulemaking at the 
Environmental Protection Agency. I certainly want to thank the authors 
for their thoughtful legislation. I want to urge my colleagues to 
support both the rule and the underlying bills.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 756 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 6. 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. 
     937) to support innovation and research in the United States 
     textile and fiber products industry. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Science, Space, and 
     Technology, the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means, and the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of 
     the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution 
     on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House 
     shall, immediately after the third daily order of business 
     under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the 
     Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 937.
                                  ____


        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. BURGESS. 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 225, 
nays 190, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 521]

                               YEAS--225

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas

[[Page 15870]]


     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--190

     Adams
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Bachmann
     Buchanan
     Campbell
     Davis, Danny
     Duckworth
     Engel
     Fattah
     Hall
     Hastings (FL)
     Hurt
     Jackson Lee
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Mullin
     Negrete McLeod
     Roskam
     Sherman
     Smith (WA)
     Titus

                              {time}  1322

  Messrs. HINOJOSA and DOGGETT changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HURT. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall vote No. 521, a 
recorded vote on H. Res. 756. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 521, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''
  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 227, 
noes 192, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 522]

                               AYES--227

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--192

     Adams
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta

[[Page 15871]]


     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bachmann
     Buchanan
     Campbell
     Davis, Danny
     Duckworth
     Engel
     Fattah
     Hall
     Hastings (FL)
     Jackson Lee
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Mullin
     Negrete McLeod
     Smith (WA)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1330

  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.

                          ____________________