[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2675-2683]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4557, BLOCKING REGULATORY 
    INTERFERENCE FROM CLOSING KILNS ACT OF 2016, AND PROVIDING FOR 
  PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 4, 2016, THROUGH MARCH 11, 
                                  2016

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 635 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 635

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4557) to 
     allow for judicial review of any final rule addressing 
     national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for 
     brick and structural clay products or for clay ceramics 
     manufacturing before requiring compliance with such rule. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 
     any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit.
       Sec. 2.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     March 4, 2016, through March 11, 2016--
        (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. 3.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 635 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 4557, the Blocking Regulatory Interference from 
Closing Kilns Act of 2016. The resolution provides for a closed rule. 
No amendments are made in order, as none were filed with the Rules 
Committee. Additionally, the rule also provides for standard 
adjournment authority.
  H.R. 4557 is an important piece of legislation. It is a bipartisan 
bill that addresses an unfortunate recurring theme: overreach by the 
EPA that takes jobs away from hardworking Americans.
  Last September the EPA finalized the National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products and 
Clay Ceramics, commonly known as Brick MACT. Only in the Federal 
Government would we string that many words together and think it makes 
sense.
  In that rule, the EPA set stringent standards for brick industry 
emissions of mercury and nonmercury pollutants as well as health-based 
standards for acid gases.
  EPA previously promulgated Brick MACT standards in 2003. That rule 
was vacated by a Federal court in 2007, but, by that time, many brick 
manufacturers had already spent millions of dollars in irreversible 
compliance costs.
  Now, let's be clear. Those aren't just costs that are borne by those 
businesses. Those get passed along to the American consumers, raising 
the price of brick to each and every one of us.
  The brick industry faces again the uncertainty of having to spend 
millions of dollars to comply with revised Brick MACT while the fate of 
the rule makes its way through the court system.
  Mr. Speaker, the brick industry employs thousands of Americans at 
more than 70 brick plant and supporting facilities nationwide. These 
facilities are located in 38 States. Alabama, my home State, is one of 
the top five States for brick manufacturing capacity and faces some of 
the largest job losses.
  Unlike other industries targeted by EPA's overreach, the brick 
industry is dominated by small, family-owned businesses that have been 
struggling in our current economy.
  EPA estimates industry-wide annual compliance in Brick MACT will cost 
$25 million annually. The industry estimates that the costs may be as 
much as $100 million per year. For a facility with two kilns, which is 
the industry average, costs are estimated to be $4.4 million.
  Remember, those costs get passed along to us consumers in the cost of 
bricks. These costs will likely cause many of these small facilities to 
shut their doors and are, of course, over and above the millions of 
dollars already spent by the industry to comply with the earlier rule 
that was vacated by the D.C. Circuit.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4557 ensures that the brick industry will not again 
have to make millions of dollars in expenditures before Brick MACT 
works its way through the courts.
  H.R. 4557 would implement a legislative stay to Brick MACT and block 
the rule until all related court challenges have been resolved by the 
Federal courts.
  Opponents of this bill argue that a legislative stay is unnecessary 
because the brick industry can request a judicial stay in Federal 
court; however, as an attorney, I can tell you that the standard to 
receive such a stay is incredibly high and such stays are rarely 
granted.

[[Page 2676]]

  The recent case of Michigan v. EPA provides a great example of why 
this legislation is necessary. In that case, the Supreme Court found 
the EPA's Utility MACT rule to be legally flawed and remanded the case; 
however, by that time, utility companies had already been forced to 
spend billions of dollars to comply with Utility MACT. Remember, that 
gets passed along to the consumers in our utility bills.
  EPA Acting Administrator Janet McCabe stated that, although EPA lost, 
the Supreme Court's decision was of limited practical effect because 
the majority of power plants were already in compliance or well on 
their way to compliance. Thus, the EPA was, in practicality, able to 
evade any meaningful judicial review, which makes a mockery of this 
process.
  The EPA should not get to do the same again to the brick industry 
while Brick MACT makes its way through the court system. Thousands of 
American jobs should not be put at risk due to a rule which has already 
been vacated once. Again, the consumers of America should not be 
penalized for the same reason.
  I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 635 and the 
underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the 
underlying bill. The Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing 
Kilns Act--certainly, a mouthful to say--is yet another of the endless 
list of attempts by this body--and it will not become law--to block 
implementation of an administrative rule or regulation that some people 
don't like, rather than tackling the issues that this country cares 
about and that I hear from voters back home when I have townhall 
meetings or I am at the grocery store.
  I hear about fixing our broken immigration system and securing our 
border. I hear about balancing the budget deficit. I hear about making 
sure that Medicare and Social Security are solvent and there for the 
next generation. I hear about making sure we create jobs, that housing 
is affordable, and that our roads and bridges are safe so traffic can 
flow safely and quickly.
  Yet, here we are again, spending an entire legislative day debating a 
bill that won't become law, which you will certainly hear about over 
the next couple of hours, regarding a series of regulations around 
brick kilns.
  Once again the Republicans are approaching a complex rulemaking 
process with a knee-jerk reaction in a nontransparent process with a 
closed rule, not even allowing a debate for a single amendment.
  Not only is this bill not transparent and not necessary, in this 
particular case, it sets a bad precedent because the courts already 
have the authority to issue a stay of compliance on a final rule.
  As we saw through the recent delay of the Clean Power Plan, our 
judicial and legislative systems are separate for a reason.
  Let the courts do their work and let us do ours. Let us not preempt 
the courts from their normal process. Our judicial and legislative 
systems are separate. Individuals, organizations, and companies have 
plenty of recourse and options through the court system to address this 
matter.
  The floor of the House is not the place to be requesting a stay. If 
there was something done that was illegal or wrong, the place to 
request a stay is the courtroom.
  But time and time again legislation like this has come to this floor, 
disposing of the judicial process and shortcutting the justice system 
that we have to delay a rule until all legal challenges are completed, 
which effectively means that frivolous lawsuits can jam up the rule 
indefinitely and forever.
  Over the past 45 years, it is proven that clean air regulations are 
important to protect the public health and consistent with growing a 
strong economy.
  Of course, I understand the pressure requirements placed on brick and 
clay ceramic makers. They have legitimate reasons to provide input to 
question or contest the rule.
  The judicial avenue is and will be available to them. That is the 
appropriate venue to request a stay, not the floor of the House of 
Representatives.
  There are several brick and clay companies in my State of Colorado, 
such as the Summit Brick & Tile Company in Pueblo, Colorado. I know 
these companies updated and changed their industry after the 2004 rule.
  But, unfortunately, like so many rules under the administration of 
George Bush, the rule is written so poorly that it was vacated by the 
courts in 2007, which means there is no rule under the authority of the 
Clean Air Act, which this Congress has made the law of the land, that 
sets standards for eliminating air pollution in this industry. Not only 
is that unacceptable, but, of course, it needs to be rectified 
urgently.
  There is nothing special about brick kilns. Like anything else, of 
course, they affect air quality. I have a picture of what we are 
talking about here.
  Of course, like any other economic activity that creates issues 
regarding air quality, we need a nuanced and thoughtful rule that 
ensures that the economic activity continues, subject to maintaining 
the public health.
  In fact, the EPA has a responsibility under section 112 of the Clean 
Air Act to control pollution from stationary sources of pollution, like 
brick kilns.
  Let me repeat that. The EPA was actually required by Congress to 
implement a rule that covers this industry because, according to the 
judiciary, President Bush enacted the rule incorrectly.
  If Congress wants to get at the underlying statutes, let's have that 
debate. Let's talk about what the EPA should and shouldn't do.
  I believe that we should close down loopholes that exempt fracking 
from regulation under the Clean Air Act. We have a series of bills that 
would do that--the BREATHE Act and the FRESHER Act--to ensure that the 
small site exemption does not occur, does not exist with regard to 
fracking activities that, in the aggregate, can have a considerable 
impact on air quality.
  We have seen areas of our State and our neighboring State of Wyoming 
have worse air quality than downtown Los Angeles because of the 
extraction and fracking-related activity, which is largely exempt from 
the clean air law.
  That is the debate I would be happy to have. Let's debate the 
appropriate jurisdiction of the EPA. If there is something we got wrong 
in that with regard to brick kilns and their authority or 
responsibility, that is the place to have the debate.

                              {time}  0930

  It is not to give an indefinite stay to simply implement what is the 
law of the land and the will of Congress, which is the EPA's 
responsibility.
  Congress has told the EPA, through the Clean Air Act, that they have 
the responsibility under section 112 to control pollution from 
stationary sources of pollution. They tried to do it under President 
Bush. It was tossed out by the courts because it was improperly 
constructed, and they are doing their job.
  Yet, Congress is trying to use something that is normally a judicial 
procedure, a stay, to get around the very mandate that Congress gave 
the Environmental Protection Agency. So it is simply the wrong way to 
go about it.
  Brick and clay plants, if left unregulated, which is why they are 
covered under the Clean Air Act, can be major sources of toxic air 
pollutants, like hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride, and hazardous 
metal, heavy metal pollutants that can endanger people with everything 
from asthma to cancer.
  Now, I don't know about you, but I would rather have my children 
running around a playground of a town where plants that put out 
hazardous pollutants are regulated in a thoughtful and responsible way, 
which is what this rule attempts to do.
  That is why opponents of this legislation include the Center for 
Biological Diversity, League of Conservation Voters, League of Women 
Voters, National Resource Development Council, the Sierra Club, and the 
Union of Concerned Scientists.

[[Page 2677]]

  All of these experts understand that, for 15 years, Congress has 
expected air pollution from these facilities to be covered by the Clean 
Air Act standards, and that delaying the process further is 
irresponsible, prevents the EPA from doing their mandate that Congress 
has given them, sets a dangerous public health precedent, and will 
endanger lives of American citizens.
  Not only is this a treacherous pattern but, again, it is a waste of 
time. This bill won't become law. It came out of committee on a party-
line vote. The majority knows that, even in the off chance that the 
Senate were to consider this legislation, which I highly doubt, the 
President would veto the bill.
  It was indicated in the Statement of Administration Policy that I 
will include in the Record, Mr. Speaker, which reads, in part, H.R. 
4557 would create ``an incentive for parties to litigate this 
rulemaking and the related corrections notice for as long as possible 
in order to delay air pollution reductions.''

                   Statement of Administration Policy


 H.R. 4557--Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns Act of 
          2016--Rep. Bill Johnson, R-OH, and seven cosponsors

       The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 4557, which could 
     extend indefinitely deadlines for the brick and structural 
     clay industry to limit mercury and other hazardous air 
     pollution. Specifically, H.R. 4557 would extend compliance 
     deadlines for the Brick and Structural Clay National Emission 
     Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants until all litigation 
     on the final rule is complete, thereby creating an incentive 
     for parties to litigate the rulemaking and the related 
     corrections notice for as long as possible in order to delay 
     air pollution reductions. In the meantime, H.R. 4557 would 
     undermine the public health protections of the Clean Air Act 
     (CAA) by allowing further emissions of approximately 30 tons 
     per month of toxic air pollution from brick and clay products 
     production facilities. These toxic emissions include mercury, 
     gases, and other hazardous metals which are associated with a 
     variety of acute and chronic health effects, including 
     cancers.
       The CAA required the Environmental Protection Agency to 
     finalize pollution standards for toxic air pollution from all 
     industrial sectors by 2000. Since then, sources in many other 
     sectors have been complying with standards that limit their 
     emissions of cancer-causing toxic air pollutants. The subject 
     rule reflects CAA requirements while providing flexible 
     compliance options and the maximum time allowed by law for 
     compliance. It also makes distinctions between requirements 
     for small and large kilns in order to reduce the impacts on 
     small businesses.
       Since its enactment in 1970, and subsequent amendment in 
     1977 and 1990--each time with strong bipartisan support--the 
     CAA has improved the Nation's air quality and protected 
     public health. Over that same period of time, the economy has 
     grown over 200 percent while emissions of key pollutants have 
     decreased nearly 70 percent. Forty-five years of clean air 
     regulation have shown that a strong economy and strong 
     environmental and public health protection go hand-in-hand.
       Because H.R. 4557 threatens the health of Americans by 
     allowing more toxic air pollution, if the President were 
     presented with H.R. 4557, his senior advisors would recommend 
     that he veto the bill.

  Mr. POLIS. Again, so long as even there are the most frivolous 
lawsuits and anybody could continually file a lawsuit, and so long as 
any one of them is pending, the rule does not take effect. It is 
indefinitely stayed.
  So, yet again, we are debating something on the floor going nowhere. 
We are not debating improving our roads and bridges. We are not 
debating securing our southern border. We are not debating balancing 
our Federal budget deficit. We are not debating making America more 
competitive and bringing jobs from overseas and China back home here 
and creating a growing middle class. Instead, we are wasting time on 
legislation that won't become law, that shouldn't even become law 
because it is the inappropriate role of this body.
  There are so many things that we could be talking about even within 
the energy realm and the EPA realm that would be productive 
discussions. I will give you an example.
  I have had the opportunity in hearings in the Natural Resources 
Committee to bring up a bipartisan bill that I have with Mr. Gosar 
twice this week, and this is the third time. It is a bill that would 
create jobs and create renewable energy. It is called the Public Lands 
Renewable Energy Development Act.
  Why don't we have a rule on that bill or bring it up on suspension?
  Mr. Gosar and my bill would incentivize renewable energy development 
by streamlining the permitting process on public lands for renewable 
energy projects.
  Isn't that something we can come together about, making sure that we 
can find a way to expedite siting for renewable energy products on 
public land, creating jobs and creating clean energy?
  Or we could be discussing the need for a permanent reauthorization of 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund, something that just last week was 
offered as a bipartisan amendment by myself and Mr. Grijalva and Mr. 
Sanford of South Carolina.
  But, of course, that amendment was not given an hour of debate, 2 
hours of debate, like this. We have the rule, we have the bill. The 
entire legislative day is discussing a stay on brick kilns. It should 
be in a courtroom, not in the U.S. House.
  We weren't even given 10 minutes. We weren't even given 1 minute to 
discuss that bipartisan amendment from Mr. Grijalva and Mr. Sanford and 
myself.
  Look, the list goes on and on of what we could be doing. It has been 
said that politics is the art of the possible.
  When the American people look at our proceedings on the floor and 
what the Republican majority is doing with Congress, is it any wonder 
that the approval rating of Congress is 8 percent?
  The people look at Congress and say, look, you are spending an entire 
day debating a stay on kiln rules. First of all, why are you talking 
about it? It should be in a courtroom.
  Second of all, aren't there critical national priorities that you 
need to be debating right now to create jobs, make America more 
competitive overseas, improve our schools, make college more 
affordable, balance our deficit, fix our broken immigration system, 
improve our roads and bridges, make America more competitive and grow 
the middle class? Aren't there?
  That is what 92 percent of the American people are crying out. There 
is still time for this Congress to listen. I hope that we begin.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for 
his important work on this issue, and also the gentleman from Ohio.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 4557, the BRICK Act. This legislation 
delays an unnecessary EPA rule that imposes overly strict emission 
standards on American brick kilns.
  Manufacturers shouldn't have to deal with the hassles of an 
overzealous regulator in the first place, but they should at least get 
to have their day in court fighting this unreasonable regulation before 
incurring millions of dollars of expense to comply.
  Since 2003, brick manufacturers have reduced emissions from kilns by 
95 percent. However, EPA decided to impose another Washington mandate 
on small businesses, which they may not even be able to meet.
  Shuttering U.S. brick factories will lead to higher costs for 
American consumers, making it even more expensive to open a business or 
raise a family.
  Additionally, manufacturers will shed good-paying jobs in places like 
Malvern, Arkansas. And, once again, our manufacturing needs will move 
offshore to a place that pollutes much worse than we do here.
  Not only is the EPA out of touch with reality on this issue, they 
exhibit no common sense when they regulate jobs away from America and 
send them to countries that pay sub-par wages and have sub-par 
pollution control technology. They have a lose-lose proposition.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the same EPA that negligently released millions 
of gallons of toxic mine water into the Animas River, tried to cover up 
and minimize their actions, refused to take

[[Page 2678]]

responsibility, and resisted being held accountable.
  If anyone needs more regulation, it is this out-of-control Federal 
agency, not hard-working Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, for the sake of our environment and economy, I urge the 
House to pass the BRICK Act to keep the air cleaner and to save good-
paying jobs here at home.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to talk a little bit more about when we say this bill will 
never become law what exactly we mean and I mean when I indicate that.
  There have been an enormous number of bills that have passed the 
House of Representatives. As an example, repealing the Affordable Care 
Act, ObamaCare, taking health care away from tens of millions of 
Americans--that has passed this House in one form or another 64 times. 
So 64 times the House of Representatives has voted to repeal the 
Affordable Care Act. That is clearly what people who have been elected 
to the House have decided to do.
  The House of Representatives alone, however, doesn't get to make the 
law. We have the United States Senate and we have a President. The 
United States Senate usually requires, as a procedural matter, 60 votes 
to move legislation forward. And of course, even after a bill in the 
same form passes the House and the Senate, for it to become law, the 
President needs to sign it. If the President vetoes it, it immediately 
comes back and will require two-thirds to override the veto.
  So what we are talking about with this bill around kilns, like this 
one here, we are talking about a bill that probably will pass the 
House. I expect that that is what we are spending a whole day on. I 
don't think the Republicans would want to spend a whole day on it if it 
was going to fail. So let's assume it passes.
  I have heard no indication whatsoever that the Senate is going to 
take this up in any way, shape, or form. In the unlikely event that the 
Senate takes it up, they have the challenge of getting 60 votes.
  The bill had no bipartisan support in committee. It is hard to see 
how they would get enough Democratic support in the Senate to get the 
60 votes to pass the bill. Even if they somehow did, President Obama 
and the administration is, of course, against providing a stay against 
their own rule that they promulgated. Therefore, we are spending an 
entire day doing nothing, talking about brick kilns, fiddling while 
Rome burns.
  The American people are upset, Mr. Speaker. The American people want 
this Congress to tackle the issues that affect them and their family 
around their kitchen table: rising rents and mortgage prices; maybe the 
mom or the dad or the kids lost their job and need to get back to work; 
making sure that they have a way to commute to work every day, and that 
our roads and bridges are strong, and they spend a minimal amount of 
time in traffic so they can spend more time with their family or at 
work earning money; balancing our budget deficit to secure a strong 
financial future for our country; making sure that Medicare and Social 
Security are there and safe, not only for today's retirees, but for the 
next generation and the next generation of American retirees; securing 
our southern border and replacing our broken and nonsensical and costly 
immigration system with one that works for America to make us more 
competitive, generate more revenues, unites families, and reflects our 
values as a Nation of immigrants.
  We could be doing any of those things. We could be debating any of 
those things. No one says they are easy. It starts with time to debate 
here on the floor of the House. What a great way to spend a day, a 
Thursday.
  By the way, Speaker Ryan and the Republicans don't even have us 
working Friday, tomorrow. They are sending us all home on Thursday, 
after spending a day debating brick kilns. We are not even debating 
anything tomorrow, Friday, or Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday or 
Thursday or Friday of next week.
  I mean, look, the American people would love this kind of job which 
the Republican majority has given themselves with the congressional 
calendar where we have worked 3\1/2\ days this week, get Friday off, 
all of next week off, and spend a whole day debating brick kilns, 
rather than the issues that the American people care about.
  That is what is going on here. That is why Congress has such a low 
approval rating.
  Well, look, let's begin by debating the issues that people care 
about. They are hard. I get that. Fixing our broken immigration system, 
balancing our budget deficit, securing Medicare and Social Security, 
are not easy issues.
  But why don't we spend a day doing that, today, all day, having ideas 
from both sides of the aisle, having Members speak about their plans to 
make America better and stronger, rather than debating a court 
procedure, a stay on brick kilns, all day, and then rewarding ourselves 
with a day off tomorrow.
  Job well done, Congress. We did a court procedure on brick kilns as 
our work product and, for that, we deserve a week and a half off.
  That is the job that Congress has defined for itself, and it is why 
the American people are so outraged.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule that would require the Republicans to stop their 
partisan games and hold hearings on the budget proposal, the 
President's budget.
  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 Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we pass this previous question motion that 
I am making, we can actually begin the important discussion of how we 
can bring our budget into balance and restore fiscal responsibility.
  Let's have hearings on the President's budget proposal. Let's talk 
about the tradeoffs around investments and savings. Let's have those 
meaningful discussions, rather than to spend an entire day on brick 
kilns, and then giving ourselves a week and a half off.
  We can still salvage this Congress for the American people. We can 
restore trust in the integrity and the desire of the American 
Government to do good and tackle the big issues we face. I am confident 
we can.
  That can begin by passing my previous question motion and getting to 
debate about the budget and balancing our budget and the tradeoffs and 
investments in our future, rather than debating kilns and giving 
ourselves a week and a half off.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I was very interested to hear my colleague talk about what makes the 
American people frustrated and angry right now. I have just come 
through a primary campaign for my seat in Alabama. I spent a lot of 
time with the citizens of the United States in my district. They are 
indeed frustrated and angry, and let me tell you why. They are 
frustrated and angry because we have a government in the Federal sphere 
that is out of control, and it is taking away their jobs.
  This regulation will take away jobs from people in Alabama. It will 
take away jobs from people in 38 States. That is what makes them angry: 
a Federal Government that cares so little about them that they would 
put out a regulation like this that kills jobs, that raises the price 
of bricks on those of us who buy them to build our homes, and the 
Federal Government thinks that is necessary. But we have to do this 
today because we have a Federal Government that doesn't understand that 
its role is not to do that.
  So let's get back to what this really means. This is not a partisan 
issue. Two of the sponsors of this bill are from the other party. My 
colleague from Alabama (Ms. Sewell) is a sponsor of this bill and the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) is a sponsor of

[[Page 2679]]

this bill because they understand it is going to hurt their 
constituents. It is going to hurt the average working person in this 
country.
  My colleagues on the other side don't get that, and because they 
don't get that, there is no job too small for them, in their minds, to 
kill. There is no business too small for them to put out of business. 
There is no amount of money that they are going to increase what we 
consumers have to pay that is too much for them. They would kill every 
job, and they would hold back every consumer's ability to get a home at 
a decent price to get some little, small, almost nothing benefit.
  There were no amendments offered as part of this debate today because 
none were offered in committee and none were offered to the Rules 
Committee. So this is not a closed debate because we are trying to 
close off amendments. There aren't any amendments.
  Now, I heard a lot about a judicial stay. I said this in my initial 
remarks: saying that there is a ``possibility'' for a judicial stay 
says nothing about the practicality of it. I addressed that in my 
opening remarks. Let me just tell you, as a practical way, it is almost 
impossible to get this stay. Yet, when they got a stay several years 
ago, it was so late in the game that the brick industry had to go ahead 
and make all the changes, which cost jobs and increased the price of 
bricks for the rest of us.
  Here is the truth. My colleague said that there is an obligation to 
have a rule here. There is already a rule on particulate matter, and 
most of the benefits in the rule that has been proposed here are to 
particulate matter. It is already regulated.
  And, oh, by the way, when that prior regulation that was turned back 
by the Supreme Court was put out there and the industry had to go ahead 
and comply with it, they had already reduced emissions by over 90 
percent.
  So what we are talking about in this regulation is another effort to 
get at some small, little, almost imperceivable benefit at the cost of 
hundreds, if not thousands, of American jobs. I am astonished that this 
administration is so insensitive to that. The people of America are 
angry and frustrated because of that.
  Now, I know that we are going to be having debates about some of the 
issues that my colleague talked about, and I am looking forward to 
those debates. But to the people who work in the industry, this is an 
important issue. It may not be important to other people in this House, 
but it is important to people that work for these brick businesses. It 
is important to me as a consumer looking at what it is going to cost me 
for buying new bricks.
  So I would hope that there would be greater sensitivity from this 
administration for my colleagues in this House to people who are being 
hurt by this rule, and I hope that we will all take this very seriously 
as the important issue that it is.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to, first of all, congratulate the gentleman from 
Alabama. He had a recent election and triumphed, and, of course, we 
will be excited to continue to serve with him.
  When we run, it is difficult. We have our ear to the ground, and we 
hear people. The gentleman mentioned that people were angry back home. 
I think there are a lot of people in my district that are angry, too. 
But again, I want to ask the gentleman: Is what they were angry about 
this brick kiln rule, or were they angry about the failure of Congress 
to secure our borders and the failure of Congress to balance our 
budget, all those things? I want to ask whether what you heard about in 
that anger was about brick kilns, or was it about other issues.
  I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, they are angry about a Federal Government 
that is overreaching and hurting them. That is what they are angry 
about.
  Mr. POLIS. Did anybody who was angry bring up brick kilns as 
something they were angry about?
  I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, they brought up the EPA over and over again. 
I hear about the EPA everywhere I go.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as I indicated, it would 
be an appropriate discussion for us to talk about the statutory 
obligations of EPA. We might have differing opinions. I think they 
should have the authority, we should remove the small site exemption, 
and they should look at emissions from the fracking industry and the 
extraction. But that is a valid discussion to have.
  Instead of that, we are saying you are doing what we told you to do, 
but we want to grant a stay. So Congress, under the EPA in section 112, 
directed the EPA under the Clean Air Act to promulgate these 
regulations. President George Bush did so. They were tossed out, and 
now there is a new set of regulations going forward to implement what 
Congress wanted the EPA to do.
  Now, if the gentleman from Alabama doesn't want the EPA to do that, 
let's have that discussion about EPA's authority. I am happy to do it. 
I have ideas. Maybe there are some areas the EPA shouldn't have that 
mandate authority. There are other areas, like making sure we look at 
emissions from fracking where we need enhanced authority because there 
is something called the small site exemption in the Clean Air Act, 
where, even though each particular fracking pad has a very small 
contribution to air quality, when you start having thousands of them in 
a limited area--which we do--it starts looking a lot less like a couple 
automobiles and a lot more like a large industrial factory. So they 
shouldn't be exempt just by nature of being small, because when you 
have a lot of small things, it equals not only one big thing, it equals 
10 big things and 100 big things.
  We have over 40,000 active wells in the greater Weld-Larimer County 
area alone, and there is an enormous impact on our air quality, which 
is exempt under the small site exemption.
  So again, section 112 directs the EPA to promulgate these rules. If 
we want to open up the mandate that Congress has given the EPA, let's 
have that discussion.
  As an individual legislator, I might trade you this brick kiln 
authority if we can close the small site exemption. I would say, fine; 
my constituents care more about closing that small site exemption than 
they do if there are two brick kilns in our entire State. So I think, 
in general, my constituents and Coloradans care more about making sure 
our air quality is good and protected with regard to the emissions from 
the fracking activity than from the two brick kilns. So I would be open 
to that as a legislative compromise. That is how legislation is made. 
But we are not allowed to have that debate.
  The gentleman mentioned, oh, no amendments were brought forward. 
Guess what? We did a motion in the Rules Committee--I am sure the 
gentleman from Alabama remembers--yesterday to do an open rule on this. 
If that had passed--and it failed on a partisan vote. Not a single 
Republican voted to allow an open rule on this bill. If that had 
succeeded, if that had passed, that open rule the Democrats wanted, we 
could then introduce amendments like the ones that I mentioned to talk 
about the authority of the EPA or other issues that we have to improve 
the statutory requirements in charge of the EPA. Right on the floor, we 
would have the opportunity to do that. Instead, we have an entire day 
on brick kilns without even being allowed to introduce amendments that 
affect our clean air and water in any way, shape, or form. I think we 
can do better.
  The gentleman also asked what the impact of the brick kilns on this 
is. The EPA estimates that the brick and clay rule would reduce 
national air toxins by approximately 375 tons in 2018. Again, that is 
what Congress has told the EPA to do under the Clean Air Act.
  If Congress wants the EPA to do something different, let's have that 
discussion, section 112, other sections

[[Page 2680]]

of the Clean Air Act, of the mandate that Congress has given the EPA. 
Let's not use a court procedure, a stay, that won't become law to 
short-circuit something that Congress has told the EPA to do. It is 
positively schizophrenic for Congress to require an agency to do 
something and then say we are not going to allow you to do what we told 
you to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, if I heard the gentleman correctly, he wants 
an open rule. Let me restate: we had no amendments offered at the 
committee of jurisdiction and no amendments offered before the Rules 
Committee, so that would fly in the face of our desire here to have 
regular order. What he has proposed is not regular order. He is 
proposing chaos, and I don't think the American people want us to be in 
chaos around here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from the great State 
of Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), a great conservative leader.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time to speak 
on the rule.
  Our process for a bill to get to the floor is it has to go through 
the Rules Committee. This was a very, very important bill. It was 
interesting in the debate, listening to the sides, because there is an 
argument by constituents of having clean bills: one bill, one issue, 
simply understood, vote on it, instead of this horse trading that 
sometimes gets proposed: you give me this for my giving you that. I can 
tell you one thing, I know in my district they really don't like this. 
They want us to be accountable for a bill.
  I also get frustrated with how easy it is to throw away jobs: I only 
have blank kilns in my State. Those are good-paying jobs for families, 
and they are important to the fabric of those communities. Just to say, 
``Look, I have only got two. I don't really worry about them. Let's 
trade them off'' is really troublesome, and I am sorry we fall into 
that type of debate.
  This is really part of a bigger debate in that the courts have 
already done this with the Clean Power Plan, the climate change bill. 
The debate is, ``Okay. EPA, you can do the regulation. Do the 
regulation.'' What the EPA likes to do is do the regulation; and they 
play this game: ``We know it is not legal, so we will impose the 
regulation. We know it is not legal. We are going to force industry to 
comply,'' and then when the courts say it is not legal, they have 
already gone too far, and the jobs have been lost.
  That is factual. That is what happened in 2003. That is what happened 
when the EPA promulgated the MACT rules in 2003. The rules were vacated 
by the Federal court in 2007--vacated--which means you can't do it. But 
the industry already was forced to do it, either to spend millions and 
millions of dollars, or they had to close.
  So fast-forward. Where are we today?
  The courts have done this on the Clean Power Plan, the big climate 
change rule. What the Court just said for the first time, the Supreme 
Court said: No, we are not going to force the States to implement the 
Clean Power Plan until it is litigated in the courts. They put a stay 
on everyone and said: Don't do anything. Let's have the legislative-
judicial debate and fight.
  That is what this bill does. Let's just have the litigation on the 
legality of this new rule. If it comes up that it is legal, then the 
industry is going to have to comply. But if it comes out that it is not 
legal, guess what. We are going to save jobs. We are going to save 
communities, and we are going to save the family income for two kilns 
in a State or maybe more, depending upon the brick-producing capability 
of individual States.
  So I am down here just to thank the Rules Committee for bringing this 
bill to the floor.
  I look forward to the debate. It is much more than brick kilns. It is 
about when can the EPA force a company to do something. We would hope 
they could only do it after it has been ruled legal by the courts if 
someone challenges a rule, and that is what this does.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1000

  There is a way that our process works around here. If a rule is 
illegal, it will be tossed out by the courts. George Bush's attempt to 
implement the Clean Air Act, section 112, around brick kilns was tossed 
out.
  What this bill does is says that, so long as there is a court 
challenge, there is some sort of presumption that the rule be tossed 
out and, therefore, an indefinite stay.
  Now, there can be challenges all the time. The minute one fails, 
another one can be launched. No bones about it. This would indefinitely 
prevent this rule from ever taking effect with regard to brick kilns.
  I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I haven't heard from a single constituent 
on this issue. Like the gentleman from Alabama, my constituents are 
angry. They are angry at Congress and worried about the direction of 
the country.
  They want Congress to replace our broken immigration system with one 
that works and secure our southern border. They want Congress to return 
to fiscal responsibility and balance our budget. They want to make sure 
that college is affordable for the next generation. They want to make 
sure they have good jobs here at home.
  They want to make sure that we encourage companies to locate and grow 
here in America rather than take tax advantages for relocating overseas 
or inverting their headquarters to occur overseas, as occurs with 
today's Tax Code. Those are some of the many issues that my 
constituents want me to talk about here.
  I just had a townhall meeting last week in Fort Collins, Colorado, 
the biggest city in my district. About 100 people came. Not a single 
person was angry about brick kilns.
  But, yes, there was a lot of anger there about some of the issues I 
indicated: people frustrated with why Congress refuses to act on making 
college more affordable, why Congress has refused to act in making sure 
that Medicare and Social Security are there for the next generation, 
and why Congress doesn't put our country on the course of fiscal 
responsibility and reduce our debt-to-GDP ratio.
  But, instead, we are debating a bill that won't become law without 
allowing amendments here on the floor. That is what a closed rule 
means. If it was an open rule, I would be able to offer my amendment to 
close the small site exemption with regard to fracking, but I can't.
  We are debating a bill that won't become law, attacking a rule that 
is merely implementing what Congress has told not just this President, 
but any President, to do. George Bush tried. Obama tried.
  It is because Congress, under the Clean Air Act, tells the executive: 
You have to do this under section 112. And then, when they do it, there 
is the issue that went through the courts.
  That is appropriate. That is their role. But when they implement what 
Congress has told them to do, we are saying: No. There is an indefinite 
stay.
  That is what this bill would do.
  I know, Mr. Speaker, regardless of what they think about any of the 
policies or rules put out by this administration or any administration, 
it is not the place of Congress to issue stays on rules. It is the role 
of the courts.
  The Constitution established three branches in our government for a 
reason under our Constitution. It is the courts' job, not Congress' 
job, to interfere with the legal process.
  It is not Congress' job to take that responsibility away from the 
judicial branch, especially with a bill that would actually encourage 
more frivolous litigation by rewarding frivolous litigation and endless 
appeals when we already have too much of that in our court system.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the 
previous question, which, if we succeed on that vote, we can 
immediately get to hold hearings on the President's budget proposals.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule as well, again, a 
closed rule, not allowing amendments here on the floor of the House.

[[Page 2681]]

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The American people are sick and tired of a Federal Government that 
is out of control. I can't imagine the Founders of this country in that 
constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787 saying: Now, let's 
think about a government agency established under our Constitution that 
is going to regulate bricks.
  No wonder the American people look at the Federal Government and say: 
Have you lost your mind? What are you doing?
  These other issues that my colleague talked about are important. But 
we have to stop here in this Congress to deal with another out-of-
control Federal agency--and the EPA is one of the most out-of-control 
Federal agencies--to protect the American people and, yes, to protect 
their jobs, to protect the consumers of America from unreasonable 
increases in the cost of things like bricks because another agency has 
done something to them.
  Yes, I think the American people are sick and tired of that, and I do 
think it is the role of this Congress to do something about it.
  The EPA would have no power except for the fact that this Congress 
has delegated its own legislative power to the EPA. Indeed, it is our 
role to not only provide oversight to that power but, on particular 
occasions, to take it back.
  Frankly, in my judgment, we don't take it back enough. If we took it 
back more, we would be protecting the American people more and their 
jobs and the cost of things that they buy every day.
  I understood what my colleague just said. I heard it. But once again 
I don't think he is thinking about those people who work for these 
brick companies and I don't think he is thinking about the consumers of 
America, who are ready for the Congress to do its job to protect them. 
This is one way that we can do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 635 and 
the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 635 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec 4. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 624) 
     Directing the Committee on the Budget to hold a public 
     hearing on the President's fiscal year 2017 budget request 
     with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget as a 
     witness. The resolution shall be considered as read. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question except one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.
       Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of House Resolution 624.
                                  ____


        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. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ribble). The question is on ordering the 
previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered, and 
suspending the rules and passing S. 1826, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 174, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 106]

                               YEAS--233

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     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
     Chaffetz
     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
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     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 (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby

[[Page 2682]]


     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     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
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--174

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

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Allen
     Bass
     Beatty
     Cardenas
     Costa
     Engel
     Franks (AZ)
     Graves (LA)
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Harris
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     McCaul
     Meeks
     Moore
     Mulvaney
     Napolitano
     Pascrell
     Pitts
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Smith (WA)
     Wagner
     Westmoreland
     Zinke
       

                              {time}  1026

  Mrs. DINGELL, Messrs. WELCH and COOPER 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. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 106, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  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 235, 
noes 173, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 107]

                               AYES--235

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     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
     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 (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pittenger
     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
     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
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
       

                               NOES--173

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     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
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     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
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Beatty
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Cardenas
     Costa
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hinojosa
     Love
     McCaul
     McDermott
     Moore
     Mulvaney
     Napolitano
     Pascrell
     Perry
     Pitts
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Smith (WA)
     Wagner
     Westmoreland
     Zinke
       
       

[[Page 2683]]




                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1033

  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.
  Stated for:
  Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 107, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 107, I was detained and 
missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________