[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7392-7399]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1245
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2262, SPURRING PRIVATE AEROSPACE 
    COMPETITIVENESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP ACT OF 2015; PROVIDING FOR 
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 880, AMERICAN RESEARCH AND COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 
2015; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES; AND 
PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM MAY 22, 2015, THROUGH 
                              MAY 29, 2015

  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 273 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 273

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2262) to facilitate a pro-growth environment 
     for the developing commercial space industry by encouraging 
     private sector investment and creating more stable and 
     predictable regulatory conditions, 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 Science, 
     Space, and Technology or their respective designees. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Science, Space, and Technology now printed in the bill, it 
     shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 114-17. 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 A 
     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. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 880) to amend 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to simplify and make 
     permanent the research credit. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways 
     and Means now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution, 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 Ways 
     and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of May 21, 2015, for the Speaker to entertain 
     motions that the House suspend the rules as though under 
     clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall 
     consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the 
     designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this 
     section.
       Sec. 4.  The Committee on Appropriations may, at any time 
     before 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 27, 2015, file privileged 
     reports to accompany measures making appropriations for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2016.
       Sec. 5.  On any legislative day during the period from May 
     22, 2015, through May 29, 2015--
        (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. 6.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 5 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule for two bills--H.R. 2262, the SPACE Act of 2015, and 
H.R. 880, the American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2015. House 
Resolution 273 provides for a structured rule for the consideration of 
H.R. 2262 and a closed rule for the consideration of H.R. 880.
  The resolution provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between 
the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Science, 
Space, and Technology, for H.R. 2262, and 1 hour of debate, equally 
divided between the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means, for H.R. 880.
  The resolution also provides for the consideration of seven 
amendments to H.R. 2262, and it provides for a motion to recommit for 
each bill. In addition, the rule provides for the normal recess 
authorities to allow the chair to manage pro forma sessions; it 
provides for the Committee on Appropriations to have the opportunity to 
file reports during the district work period; and it provides for 
suspension authority for Thursday to provide flexibility on the last 
day prior to the district work period.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution and the 
underlying legislation.
  Both of these bills represent critical investments in science and 
technological innovation. On the floor this week, we have debated and 
passed several pieces of legislation to encourage the research and 
development of new technologies and ideas, moving our economy and our 
country forward and cementing our place in the world as the leader in 
scientific discovery.

[[Page 7393]]

  These discoveries and the research they require will promote and 
create high-tech, high-paying jobs that can have untold benefits to our 
economy, benefiting all Americans. The rule and the underlying 
legislation we have under consideration today continues that objective, 
and I look forward to discussing these critical issues with our 
colleagues here in the House.
  H.R. 2262, the SPACE Act of 2015, is a package of four bills that 
will update the Commercial Space Launch Act. H.R. 2262, the SPACE Act, 
as introduced by the majority leader, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. McCarthy), will facilitate a progrowth environment for the 
commercial space industry by encouraging private sector investment and 
by creating a more stable and predictable regulatory environment.
  H.R. 1508, the Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act, 
introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey), will promote the 
development of a United States commercial space resource exploration 
and utilization industry, and it will increase the exploration and 
utilization of resources in outer space.
  H.R. 2261, the Commercial Remote Sensing Act, introduced by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine), will facilitate the 
continued development of the commercial remote sensing industry and 
protect our national security.
  Finally, H.R. 2263, the Office of Space Commerce Act, proposed by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), will rename the Office of 
Space Commercialization to the Office of Space Commerce, and it will 
seek to foster the conditions for the economic and technological growth 
of the United States space commerce industry.
  This package of bills will ensure American leadership in space by 
fostering a strong and vibrant commercial space industry. Without this 
legislation, the commercial space industry may face a myriad of 
regulatory hurdles that would threaten America's continued 
exceptionalism in space exploration.
  The other underlying bill in this rule, H.R. 880, addresses the 
research and development tax credit. In 1981, President Reagan signed 
into law a critical research and development tax credit, but Washington 
has let it expire and then has renewed it over a dozen times since 
then.
  As we discussed last month as to our tax credits, Mr. Speaker, the 
R&D tax credit was included in the package of retroactive bills and 
extenders that was signed by the President on December 19 of last year, 
providing just 7 business days of certainty for businesses seeking to 
utilize this provision of our Tax Code. It, along with all of the 
others that expired again on December 31 of last year, currently remain 
expired. The temporary nature of the now expired research credit limits 
its effectiveness, which prevents some businesses from having certainty 
on long-term investments in U.S.-based research and development.
  More research and development means more innovation, greater economic 
growth, and more American jobs. In 2012, American companies invested 
$302 billion in research and development. As of 2011, 1.47 million 
Americans worked directly in research and development. Increased 
certainty, combined with the simplification of our Tax Code, would lead 
to more research and more American jobs.
  Investment in research and development is the key to America 
remaining the world's leader in innovation. The percentage of patents 
awarded by the U.S. Patent Office has increased each year, but the 
share awarded to U.S. innovators has declined. In the year 2000, 54 
percent of the patents awarded were of American origin. By 2014, the 
number fell to 48 percent. From 2001 to 2011, America's share of global 
research and development declined from 37 percent to just 30 percent.
  By making the research credit permanent, researchers can stop 
worrying about whether Congress is going to extend the tax credit and 
can, instead, focus on new discoveries that will help fuel our economy 
and grow jobs.
  I look forward to debating these bills with our House colleagues, and 
I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes for debate.
  I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bills.
  Before I proceed, I did not speak during the 1 minutes, and I want to 
also take cognizance of this being the 50th anniversary of Head Start 
and, additionally, this month of May as being Foster Care Month. Like 
many Members, I have a young person who has a more than compelling 
story about foster care--Ke'Onda Johnson from Royal Palm, Florida--who 
is shadowing me today, and I am delighted that she and other youngsters 
have this opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 880, 
the American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2015, and H.R. 2262, 
the SPACE Act of 2015--two separate bills, wholly unrelated in content 
and purpose.
  As a first order of business, I believe it is critical that I take a 
moment to highlight the manner in which we are debating this rule 
today. The deliberation of multiple, unrelated bills under a single 
rule is a disturbing trend that has ballooned under Republican 
leadership and is one that threatens the very foundation of the 
democratic process. Forcing several pieces of legislation into a single 
rule not only prevents Members of this Chamber from making informed 
judgments about the proper floor procedure for each measure, but it 
also leads to disjointed and often perplexing debates about an 
assortment of unconnected issues.

                              {time}  1300

  Votes on the House floor should reflect where Members stand on the 
specific questions at issue, not on a set of complex and unrelated 
procedures, some of which they support and others which they oppose.
  Indeed, just yesterday, the House considered H. Res. 271, a rule 
providing for consideration of three measures: the Highway and 
Transportation Funding Act, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 
and the America COMPETES Reauthorization bill.
  The debate on that rule vacillated from surface transportation 
projects, to funding for the legislative branch, to the prioritization 
of science research development. Such debate erodes the integrity of 
House proceedings by creating confusing alternations in subject matter 
that eliminate the ability to reinforce a line of reasoning or respond 
to opposing arguments.
  The grab-bag approach has skyrocketed since Republicans assumed 
control of the House in 2011, with a record 49 grab-bag rules reported 
out during the 113th Congress. Even more disheartening, we are on 
schedule to shatter this record during the 114th Congress, having 
already approved an unconscionable 14 of these rules in less than 5 
months.
  In fairness, the chairman of the Committee on Rules did say, in 
response to one of my colleagues and myself the day before, that this 
practice is not likely to continue at its present pace, and I await the 
opportunity for him to fulfill his view with reference to that matter.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today for consideration of yet 
another grab-bag rule governing two bills of significant importance 
that, as a result of this rule, will undoubtedly escape the due 
consideration each deserves.
  H.R. 880, the American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2015, 
would make permanent a tax credit for qualified research expenses that 
expired at the end of last year. It is my strong belief that Democrats 
and Republicans, alike, support a tax credit that will help facilitate 
innovation and foster advancements in research, enabling American 
companies to grow and prosper. Technological innovation stemming from 
research and development serves as an important engine to our Nation's 
economic growth.
  My opposition to this piece of legislation, therefore, comes in first 
part

[[Page 7394]]

from my Republican colleagues' decision to make this tax credit 
permanent in what I view as a fiscally irresponsible way.
  Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends have long touted themselves as the 
party of fiscal responsibility. For this reason, I find it a bit 
insincere that they now seek to implement a tax credit with no offsets 
for lost revenue. As a result, the Joint Committee on Taxation 
estimates that this bill would add almost $182 billion to the deficit 
over the next 10 years. I have stated time and time again that we 
cannot continue to provide tax cuts and credits without a mechanism to 
pay for them. It is comical to me that my Republican friends claim to 
be the party of fiscal responsibility while they, in the same breath, 
advocate a measure that would add nearly $200 billion to the Federal 
deficit.
  In addition to this legislation's reckless budgetary impact, I 
disagree with the piecemeal approach the majority has taken in making 
these tax credits permanent. More than 50 tax provisions expired at the 
end of last year, many of them critical to the middle and working class 
and, yes, poor families. And yet, instead of addressing the issues 
facing our Tax Code in a comprehensive, bipartisan way, the majority 
has decided to leave certain tax credits--ones that would directly 
improve the lives of hard-working American families, such as the work 
opportunity tax credit, the new markets tax credit, and renewable 
energy tax credit--to an uncertain fate.
  The American people expect, and I am sure that they deserve, a Tax 
Code that supports our shared priorities. Cherry-picking tax credits to 
extend, and then allowing those credits to dramatically increase the 
deficit, is, in my view, a step in the wrong direction. It is an 
unacceptable step away from bipartisan, comprehensive tax reform.
  I agree, as most of my colleagues likely do as well, that the 
research tax credit is critical for American innovation. That is why I 
am truly disappointed, although not surprised, that my Republican 
friends have again chosen to place partisan politicking above the needs 
of our constituents.
  This rule also provides for consideration of the SPACE Act of 2015, 
another piece of once bipartisan legislation that has been distorted 
into an unrecognizable measure that panders to industry giants without 
regard for the safety of the American public or of spaceflight 
passengers.
  While the enticement of space travel hovers over the objectives of 
this legislation, we must address the reality of what this bill seeks 
to accomplish. First, this bill reads like a laundry list of commercial 
space launch industry requests, exempting it from needed safety 
regulations and providing essentially complete immunity for civil 
lawsuits by removing claims related to commercial space launches from 
State court and mandating that they be heard in Federal Court, where 
few appropriate legal remedies exist. In practice, this measure will 
immunize commercial space companies from legal liability, even in cases 
of recklessness or intentional misconduct.
  Also troubling, this bill provides tremendous subsidies for insurance 
coverage--and that is kind of interesting--to protect wealthy 
recreational spacecraft passengers. Why on earth, and there is no pun 
intended here, are we spending taxpayer dollars on individuals wealthy 
enough to travel into space for sport?
  While it is uncontested that the issues these bills seek to address 
are important, the partisan way in which they have been presented 
prevents a robust deliberation, and I therefore oppose both the rule 
and the underlying bills.
  I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to some of the 
comments of the gentleman from Florida and remind him that each bill 
will be separately debated and that, obviously, this combined rule is a 
floor time management technique that the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules yesterday said was an aberration. I take him at his word; and I 
think it is important to note that, during Democratic majorities, this 
was certainly not an unheard-of practice, either.
  I do want to make sure that I reiterate that every bill will be 
separately debated; and I would remind the gentleman that, during the 
time we have to debate the rule, if we actually stick to the topics 
related to the bills and the rules, it will help us manage our floor 
time even better.
  With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Posey).
  Mr. POSEY. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Despite some of the comments we have heard from across the aisle this 
morning, I remember my first 2 years, my first term here, and not one 
time was I allowed to even file a single amendment to a single bill 
here. All the rules were closed, and it was run like a king would run a 
kingdom, not a democratic republic. Here, today, I think the other side 
has already filed seven amendments on one of these bills. That is seven 
times more than I ever got to dream about filing when you ran this 
place.
  Another great thing about this bill, you actually get to read it 
before we pass it. We have done all our bills like that since we have 
taken control. You actually get to read the bills before they are 
passed. When you all were in the majority, we had to pass them before 
you read them. I think you remember the famous quote.
  You refer to this as a grab bag. The only grab bag I see here is the 
litany of totally unrelated subjects rattled off, as if they somehow 
related to this bill. I mean, that doesn't pass the straight face test.
  Now to the bill. I would like to thank the majority leader, Kevin 
McCarthy, and Chairman Lamar Smith for their hard work on the SPACE 
Act. The SPACE Act will help ensure American leadership in space, 
facilitating the growth and stability of the commercial space industry. 
This is an important, historic, and exciting piece of legislation.
  This legislation includes many important provisions to update our 
laws and the oversight of the commercial space industry, including 
title 2 of the Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act--
historic, bipartisan, bicameral legislation introduced with my 
colleague from the State of Washington, Derek Kilmer.
  I appreciate the support H.R. 1508, incorporated herein, has received 
from many members of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 
and the thorough work and research of Senators Patty Murray and Marco 
Rubio, who introduced identical legislation in the United States 
Senate.
  The SPACE Act also includes a provision which would streamline 
regulations and encourage cooperation between government agencies' 
commercial space activities to eliminate red tape and bureaucracy that 
are impeding development of America's commercial space industry.
  The Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of Defense, the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and other agencies are 
all involved in overseeing many commercial space launches, and 
sometimes there are duplicative measures that could be streamlined, 
cutting costs to both the Federal Government and commercial companies 
and making the United States companies more competitive in the global 
marketplace.
  Let me add that this bill includes a provision requiring the FAA to 
provide direction for space support vehicles, also known as 
experimental aircraft. Unfortunately, for too long, the FAA has held 
off providing direction by means of a regulatory framework for these 
endeavors to safely support the United States commercial space 
endeavors. In Florida, there is such an entity, approved by NASA and 
operating out of the Kennedy Space Center, which the FAA grounded 
because they use experimental aircraft. This is a testament that FAA 
needs serious reform and needs to be brought into the 21st century.
  In short, the SPACE Act is a critical piece of legislation to the 
future of our

[[Page 7395]]

commercial space industry, and it is important to our space exploration 
efforts as well.
  I thank my colleagues again for their work on the SPACE Act and urge 
all Members to support the rule today and passage of this important 
legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Marchant). Members are reminded to 
direct their remarks to the Chair and not to other Members in the 
second person.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who is the ranking member on the 
Committee on Ways and Means and a good friend of mine.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank Mr. Hastings for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about support for the R&D credit. 
Democrats have a long track record of supporting the R&D tax credit. 
Indeed, I have often been the author of legislation to strengthen it.
  This debate, purely and simply, is about fiscal responsibility, about 
taking one tax provision and making it permanent without paying one 
dime for it.
  When former Chairman Camp unveiled a tax reform proposal last year, 
he undertook a comprehensive consideration of the more than 50 tax 
provisions that expired at the end of last year, but in a fiscally 
responsible manner.

                              {time}  1315

  This bill does just the opposite. It continues a helter-skelter 
approach toward tax extenders, without any regard whatsoever for paying 
the hundreds of billions of dollars they cost to make them permanent.
  Last year, Ways and Means Republicans passed 14 permanent extensions 
at a cost of $825 billion. They went nowhere because the President has 
made clear his opposition to this approach.
  With this bill, this year's price tag has reached $586.3 billion. It 
is particularly glaring that the majority is passing unpaid-for tax 
cuts the very same week that they once again put off a long-term 
extension of highway funding because they are unable to find a revenue 
stream.
  There is no lack of support for the R&D credit among us Democrats. It 
is the approach Republicans are taking that we oppose and strongly so. 
It is fiscally irresponsible indeed, and it would leave behind vital 
provisions that help hard-working American families, like the expansion 
of the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit, and the American 
opportunity tax credit.
  We stand ready to work with the majority on tax reform and on a long-
term extension of highway funding. Today's R&D bill is tax reform in 
reverse. It makes talk of fiscal responsibility hypocrisy and creates 
another big financial pothole standing in the way of long-term highway 
funding.
  Vote ``no'' on this rule, and vote ``no'' on the bill relating to R&D 
tax credits.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I stand steadfastly against not only the way 
in which we have been conducting business with regard to the way we 
report out rules, but also to both underlying bills for their partisan 
posturing and failure to address the important issues facing the middle 
class in this country.
  We cannot continue to provide tax credits without establishing a 
revenue offset, enact tax policies that favor a partisan agenda and 
push us further away from needed comprehensive tax reform, or offer 
legislative gifts to industry giants at the expense of the American 
public.
  Mr. Speaker, Memorial Day is next Monday. If we defeat the previous 
question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up 
Representative Brownley's Help Hire Our Heroes Act, H.R. 607.
  H.R. 607 would reauthorize the Veterans Retraining Assistance 
Program, which expired in March 2014. That program paid for veterans to 
get training for high-demand occupations, and during its 3 years in 
existence, it helped more than 76,000 veterans.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question; vote ``no'' on the underlying bills.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Florida, but I would 
like to respond to a few of the comments.
  The R&D tax credit has been overwhelmingly supported for the last 16 
extensions, the last time garnering 378 votes. Only 46 Members voted 
against the R&D tax credit.
  The R&D tax credit will be passed again. In fact, the gentleman from 
Michigan admitted, Mr. Speaker, that the vast majority of Democrats 
will vote to extend the R&D tax credit. In fact, they will do it every 
year for the next 10 years, like they have the last few years. When it 
is done every year, they don't insist it is paid for.
  If you will do it for 10 years in a row without paying for it--the 
entire budget window--why don't we just all create some certainty for 
our businesses so we can invest in high-tech jobs and growing our 
economy, Mr. Speaker?
  Let's create certainty for the American people. Let's pass the bill. 
Let's pass the rule. Let's pass the previous question.
  I think, unfortunately, the arguments from the gentleman from 
Florida, Mr. Speaker, really encourage cliff politics--high-stakes, 
expiring legislation that the American people don't want. The American 
people want us to create certainty. They want us to support jobs. They 
want us to support our technological innovation in this country, Mr. 
Speaker.
  I would urge my colleagues to support the rule and support the 
underlying bills, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support the Rule on H.R. 2262, the 
Spurring Private Aerospace Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship Act of 
2015 (the SPACE Act of 2015). And I thank Majority Leader McCarthy for 
sponsoring this important legislation. The space community is well 
served having Leader McCarthy as a champion.
  This bill is the product of over three years of work. Congress 
solicited input from nearly every stakeholder group. That is reflected 
in the broad support that this bill has received.
  From industry, to education groups, to grassroots citizen advocacy 
groups, this bill has been praised by virtually every interested party.
  The process to getting here was inclusive and exhaustive. The 
Science, Space, and Technology Committee held numerous hearings on the 
topic over the last three years.
  On November 19, 2013, the Committee held a hearing on the commercial 
space industry. On February 14, 2014, the Committee held a hearing on 
updates to the Commercial Space Launch Act. On April 29, 2014, the 
Committee held a hearing on the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) 
space traffic management proposal and orbital debris. On February 27, 
2015, the Committee held a hearing on the Commercial Crew program.
  Last October, staff formally submitted a draft to the minority. 
Within the last two months, the majority and minority have worked to 
write many of the provisions in the underlying bill.
  For instance, Section 101, which deals with Consensus Standards, is 
the result of bipartisan negotiations. The same can be said for Section 
102, which calls for an update to the maximum probable loss calculation 
under indemnification.
  Section 103, which pertains to Launch Vehicle Flexibility, is 
identical to the bipartisan provision sponsored by Senators Heinrich 
and Rubio that easily passed the Senate Commerce Committee last year by 
voice vote.
  Section 104 clarifies the role of Government Astronauts and is almost 
identical to the provision requested by the FAA and NASA.
  The minority also played a role in writing Section 108 on Orbital 
Traffic Management. Section 109 on State Commercial Spaceports also 
addressed bipartisan requests.
  Section 111 on the Streamlining of Commercial Space Launch Activities 
is similar to language already in the Senate's bill, and Section 112 
was the result of an amendment in Committee that earned bipartisan 
support.

[[Page 7396]]

  Title 2 of the bill focuses on Space Resource Exploration and 
Utilization. As a standalone bill, it was the subject of a hearing last 
September and it is cosponsored by both Republicans and Democrats. It 
even has a Democratic champion on the Senate side, Senator Murray.
  Title 3 of the bill addresses Commercial Remote Sensing and also 
benefits from bipartisan co-sponsorship. When it was marked up in 
Committee last week, it enjoyed unanimous support. The same can be said 
of Title 4 of the bill that pertains to the Office of Space Commerce.
  At the Committee's recent markup, eight amendments to the provisions 
we are considering today were adopted--three of which were amendments 
offered by Democrats.
  The Rule before us today allows for consideration of five Democratic 
amendments and two Republican amendments. The majority has gone out of 
its way to include the minority in this process.
  In fact, the Administration said in a statement that it, ``does not 
oppose House passage of the bill''--a rarity for bills considered under 
a Rule.
  This bill facilitates a pro-growth environment for the developing 
commercial space industry by encouraging private sector investment, 
creating more stable and predictable regulatory conditions, and 
improving safety.
  The Act ensures American leadership in space and fosters the 
development of advanced technologies. I urge my colleagues to support 
this Rule as well as the underlying bill, and I thank the Majority 
Leader once again for his initiative on this legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the rule for H.R. 
2262, the SPACE Act of 2015.
  Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution states that 
``The Congress shall have Power to promote the Progress of Science and 
useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the 
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries . . .''
  It does not say that the Congress shall have the right to ignore.
  The United States space program has existed for over half a century 
and my commitment to providing NASA with the resources to carry the 
agency forward with its ambitious agenda of research, exploration, and 
discovery is unwavering.
  NASA continues to push the boundaries of what is possible, keeping 
our Nation on the forefront of innovation and exploration.
  It is the responsibility of this Congress to ensure that the future 
of space exploration remains a part of our national destiny.
  It inspires our children to look to the stars and dream of what they 
too, one day, may achieve.
  The Jackson Lee Amendments made in order by the Rules Committee are 
intended to improve the Space Act.
  My amendments are simple and will improve the bill.
     1. Jackson Lee Amendments to H.R. 2262
  This Jackson Lee Amendment Number 8, would facilitate the 
participation of HBCU, Hispanic Serving Institutions, National Indian 
institutions, in fellowships, work-study and employment opportunities 
in the emerging commercial space industry.
  My amendment would increase awareness among underrepresented groups 
in STEM employment and education opportunities in the commercial space 
industry.
  One of the most enduring difficulties faced by underrepresented 
populations in the STEM field is a lack of awareness and understanding 
of the connection between STEM and employment opportunities.
  In 2012, a survey found that despite the nation's growing demand for 
more workers in science, technology, engineering, and math, the skills 
gap among the largest ethnic and racial minorities groups remains 
stubbornly wide.
  Blacks and Latinos account for only 7 percent, of the STEM workforce 
despite representing 28 percent of the U.S. population.
     2. Jackson Lee Amendment on Minority and Women Owned 
         Businesses
  The Jackson Lee Amendment requires that provisions of the bill that 
address future legislation also lay the foundation for the commercial 
space industry include work on how to effectively conduct outreach to 
small business concerns owned and controlled by women and minorities.
  I have worked hard to help small business owners to fully realize 
their potential.
  That is why I support entrepreneurial development programs, including 
the Small Business Development Center and Women's Business Center 
programs.
  These initiatives provide counseling in a variety of critical areas, 
including business plan development, finance, and marketing.
  Outreach is key to developing healthy and diverse small businesses.
  There are approximately 6 million minority owned businesses in the 
United States, representing a significant aspect of our economy.
  According to the most recent available Census data, minority owned 
businesses employ nearly 6 million Americans and generate $1 trillion 
dollars in economic output.
  Women owned businesses have increased 20% between 2002 and 2007, and 
currently total close to 8 million.
  My home city of Houston, Texas, the home of the Johnson Space Center, 
is also home to more than 60,000 women owned businesses, and more than 
60,000 African American owned businesses.
     Final Jackson Lee Amendment Seeks Funding To Continue Space 
         Exploration R&D
  The taxpayer has invested in space exploration for decades.
  This investment is reaping benefits for the commercial space industry 
today.
     3. The Jackson Lee Amendment not included in the Rule would 
         have provided revenue for research and development work 
         to continue on challenges that hinder manned and unmanned 
         space flight.
  Many of the startup companies entering the space industry have few 
resources to dedicate to basic research.
  There are still critical areas of research that must be done to make 
space flight as safe as commercial transportation systems are today.
  Although commercial transportation is not 100 percent without risk, 
it is much safer than it would have been without dedicated and focused 
basic and applied research to address safety issues.
  While the government supports the aspirations of companies large and 
small to become part of the commercial space industry, it should still 
be the responsibility of NASA to pursue research that can save lives 
and improve space travel.
  If the future we envision is one where thousands of businesses will 
benefit from commercial and government space exploration and investment 
efforts then investing today in tomorrow's economy makes good sense.
     Although I believe the Jackson Lee Amendments will improve 
         the Bill, there exist troubling aspects of the bill:
  First, it is regrettable that the SPACE Act will restrict the 
``learning period'' of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 
regulation of spacecraft.
  This learning period should be extended for a shorter period than the 
ten-year extension through 2025 included in the bill.
  Second, a voluntary industry consensus standard would provide a 
strategy that improves the overall safety of the industry as opposed to 
performance-based regulations.
  Finally, I have concerns about the ability of U.S. companies to move 
forward with innovative space initiatives without authority to ensure 
continuing supervision of these initiatives as delineated in the Outer 
Space Treaty.
  Thus, I hope we can all work together in addressing these troubling 
aspects of the bill.
  I ask my colleagues to vote for the Jackson Lee Amendments.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

     An amendment to H. Res. 273 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 7. 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. 
     607) to amend the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011 to extend 
     the Veterans Retraining Assistant Program, and for other 
     purposes. 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 
     Veterans' 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. 8. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 607.
                                  ____


        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

[[Page 7397]]

     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. STIVERS. 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. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241, 
nays 183, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 250]

                               YEAS--241

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--183

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Capps
     Chaffetz
     Curbelo (FL)
     Donovan
     Frankel (FL)
     Larsen (WA)
     Tsongas
     Wasserman Schultz

                              {time}  1349

  Messrs. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico, TAKAI, and RUSH changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 250, I was not 
present because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``nay.''

[[Page 7398]]

  (By unanimous consent, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania was allowed to speak 
out of order.)


 moment of silence for those lost in the philadelphia train derailment

  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, May 12, we had a 
horrific train derailment crash in the city of Philadelphia. So first 
off, our thoughts and prayers are with the eight men and women who lost 
their lives and the over 200 who were injured.
  I have never been more proud of the men and women who live and work 
in the city of Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love and sisterly 
affection. We had this major catastrophe at 9:15 at night. Within 4 
minutes, our first responders--our police, our fire, Police 
Commissioner Ramsey, Fire Commissioner Sawyer--were on the scene.
  The scene was in total darkness, and we had volunteers from the 
neighborhood who even joined in. Imagine, total darkness. The only 
light was flashlights flashing back and forth.
  I stand here as proud as I could be of the mayor of the city of 
Philadelphia, Michael Nutter, who, from Tuesday until Sunday, was on 
that scene constantly, orchestrating the administration people, moving 
them around, consoling families, making sure that all were accounted 
for, and even making sure that their belongings were given back to 
them.
  I can't be more proud of our hospitals and our universities. 
Universities opened their doors for loved ones to come. And our 
hospitals, the doctors, nurses, all the men and women who worked 
there--there were doctors who worked 30 hours and went back home and 
couldn't sleep and came back to work another 12 hours.
  But most importantly, two things really struck me. Temple University 
Hospital in the city of Philadelphia had a lot of the injured people 
admitted to their hospital. The students who go to Temple University 
heard about it, jumped on their bicycles, and rode down to assist all 
those in the hospital, whether it be by pushing a gurney or whether it 
would be consoling a family member or putting a family member with a 
loved one.
  And the neighbors, the neighbors ran out--again, in total darkness. 
There were 200 people-plus injured. Neighbors ran through, helping out 
through all the soot, picking them up, pulling them out of the trains, 
bringing them into their house, bringing out water, going to a local 
store and buying water, bringing towels, wiping them down.
  One person said:

       I am sorry I am in your home. I am full of soot, and I am 
     dirtying your rug and your couch.

  And in response, the lady said:

       That is okay. We can buy more couches, and we can buy more 
     things, more whatever we need to buy. But you can't buy your 
     health back. So we want to be here to be able to help you in 
     the best way we can.

  I am honored to be standing here with my colleagues from Pennsylvania 
and some others from throughout the country. Some lost a loved one.
  I am extremely proud to recognize Chairman Jeff Denham and Ranking 
Member Mike Capuano, who assisted me and toured the site with me. I 
appreciate their concern, and I appreciate them being there.
  So, Mr. Speaker, the best way we can honor these men and women is to 
make sure this accident never again happens in the United States of 
America.
  With that, I ask for a moment of silence.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will 
continue.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 240, 
noes 185, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 251]

                               AYES--240

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--185

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Ribble
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano

[[Page 7399]]


     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Capps
     Chaffetz
     Deutch
     Donovan
     Hastings
     Tsongas
     Wasserman Schultz

                              {time}  1402

  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.

                          ____________________