[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13268-13277]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 REQUIRE EVALUATION BEFORE IMPLEMENTING EXECUTIVE WISHLISTS ACT OF 2016


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and to include extraneous materials on H.R. 3438.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 875 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3438.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1627


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3438) to amend title 5, United States Code, to postpone the 
effective date of high-impact rules pending judicial review, with Mr. 
Simpson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Washington's regulatory system is one that virtually every day places 
new obstacles in the path of American jobs and economic growth. The 
biggest obstacles of all are new regulations that impose more than $1 
billion per year in costs on the American economy.
  Struggling workers, families, and small business owners have every 
right to ask why regulations that cost this much are ever promulgated 
at all. Surely, there are less costly measures that are effective and 
should be adopted instead.
  Those less costly measures would allow many more resources to be 
devoted to job creation and productive investment. But billion-dollar 
rules are promulgated, and there are more and more as the Obama 
administration grinds to an end. This is one of the reasons our economy 
has faced so much difficulty in achieving a full recovery under the 
Obama administration's misguided policies.
  Making matters worse, when billion-dollar rules are challenged in 
court, regulated entities must often sink billions of dollars into 
compliance while litigation is pending even if that litigation 
ultimately will be successful. Such was the case in Michigan v. EPA, 
for example, in which an Environmental Protection Agency rule for 
utilities imposed about $10 billion in costs to achieve just $4 million 
to $6 million in benefits. That is, at best, about $1,600 in costs for 
every $1 of benefit.

                              {time}  1630

  This is money for job creation and economic recovery we simply cannot 
afford to waste. But EPA and the courts allowed it to be wasted for 
years during successful litigation challenging the rule, because 
neither the EPA nor the courts stayed the rule.
  The REVIEW Act, introduced by Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, 
Commercial and Antitrust Law Chairman Marino, is a commonsense measure 
that responds to this problem with a simple, bright-line test. Under 
the bill, if a new regulation imposes $1 billion or more in annual 
cost, it will not go into effect until after litigation challenging it 
is resolved. Of course, if the regulation is not challenged, it

[[Page 13269]]

may go into effect as normal. This is a balanced approach, and it 
provides a healthy incentive for agencies to promulgate effective, but 
lower-cost regulations that are more legally sound to begin with.
  I want to thank Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and 
Antitrust Law Chairman Tom Marino for his work on this important 
legislation.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  H.R. 3438 would stay the enforcement of any rule imposing an annual 
cost to the economy in excess of $1 billion, pending judicial review.
  Now, do you suspect what that might do? It would have a pernicious 
impact on rulemaking and the ability of agencies to respond to critical 
health and safety issues. In essence, the bill would encourage anyone 
who wants to delay a significant rule from going into effect to simply 
seek a judicial review of the rule.
  Please, we all know that the judicial review process can take 
months--sometimes years--to finalize, especially if the appellate 
process reaches the United States Supreme Court. So rather than 
ensuring predictability and streamlining the rulemaking process, this 
bill would have the completely opposite impact by making the process 
less predictable and more time-consuming.
  Equally important, H.R. 3438 has absolutely no health or safety 
emergency exceptions. If anything, this bill would empower the very 
entities that caused a serious health or safety risk to delay and maybe 
even derail legitimate efforts by regulatory agencies to respond to 
such threats.
  As with other bills proposed by my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle, this legislation myopically focuses only on the cost of a 
proposed rule while ignoring the rule's benefits, which often exceed 
its costs by many multiples.
  In closing, there is broad agreement among experts in the 
administrative law field that our Nation's regulatory system is already 
too cumbersome and slow-moving.
  Now, in addition to the Administrative Procedure Act's procedural 
mechanisms which are designed to ensure an open and fair rulemaking 
system, Congress has passed various additional Federal laws that impose 
further rulemaking requirements, and rulemaking agencies must also 
comply with a number of executive orders issued over the past several 
decades that have created additional layers of analytical and 
procedural requirements. The result of this dense web of existing 
requirements is a complex, time-consuming rulemaking process.
  In response to the explosion of analytical requirements imposed on 
the rulemaking process, the American Bar Association as well as many 
administrative law experts have urged Congress to exercise restraint 
and assess the usefulness of existing requirements before considering 
sweeping legislation.
  Imposing new analytical and procedural requirements on the 
administrative system also carries real human and economic costs. As 
Professor Weissman, the president of Public Citizen, has observed, the 
cost of regulatory delay is ``far more severe than generic 
inefficiency. Lengthy delay costs money and lives; it permits ongoing 
ecologic destruction and the infliction of needless injury; and it 
enables fraudsters and wrongdoers to perpetuate their misdeeds.''
  Rather than alleviating these problems, H.R. 3438 would clearly 
exacerbate them. Accordingly, I must urge Members to oppose this ill-
conceived legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), the chief sponsor of the legislation and the 
chairman of the Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law 
Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the full committee chairman, Mr. 
Goodlatte, for supporting the REVIEW Act as an original cosponsor and 
for moving it through the Judiciary Committee. I am also grateful for 
the many other Members who have cosponsored this bill.
  The REVIEW Act rests upon a very simple premise: that regulations 
with annual costs exceeding $1 billion annually should receive full 
judicial review before they go into effect.
  The regulations we are concerned about are so massive that their 
compliance costs are felt nationwide. These regulations touch every 
corner of our economy. They drive up the cost to put food on the table 
and clothes on our backs, and, in the worst of situations, they take 
away the very jobs Americans have earned.
  Due to these immense costs, it is not only prudent, but appropriate 
that aggrieved parties have their day in court. These costs demand that 
executive agencies must justify their reasoning and legal underpinnings 
of their rulemaking. Requiring American taxpayers and businesses to 
comply before the judicial process runs its course reeks of injustice.
  Historically, these high-impact rules with costs over $1 billion 
annually have been few and far between. Since 2006, there have been 
just 26 in total. However, in recent years, their number has grown 
exponentially alongside the growth and reach of the regulatory state. 
There have been an average of three over the past 8 years and six in 
2014 alone.
  Although some may insist that the straightforward reforms in this 
bill overreach, recent events indicate otherwise. Last summer, in the 
Supreme Court's decision in Michigan v. EPA, we saw firsthand the 
irreparable harm that can occur when expansive, costly, and poorly 
crafted regulations are not given time for review. In this case, the 
Court found that the EPA had promulgated its Utility MACT power plant 
rule through a faulty process and on legally infirm grounds because it 
chose not to consider costs when promulgating the rule. The costs of 
the rule were estimated by the EPA itself--by the EPA who created the 
rule--at $9.6 billion per year. In return, the EPA's best estimate of 
potential benefits were in the range of a mere $4 million to $6 
million--with an M--annually.
  As the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his opinion for the 
Court: ``One would not say that it is even rational, never mind 
`appropriate,' to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in 
return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.''
  Unfortunately for workers, homeowners, and taxpayers across the 
country, when the Utility MACT rule was promulgated in early 2012 and 
after litigation began, neither the EPA nor Court stayed it, pending 
judicial review. It remained in effect as litigation took 3 years to 
work itself to a final decision in the Supreme Court in 2015. When 
review finally got to the Court, the effects were nearly irreversible.
  Action on the REVIEW Act is a reasonable step on our part to continue 
proper and reasonable regulatory reforms.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, action on the REVIEW Act is a reasonable 
step on our part to continue proper and responsible regulatory reform.
  In the end, this is a bill that encourages smaller, sensible 
rulemaking. When the costs are borne on the back of our constituents, 
this is a cause that we all certainly can get behind.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not only important because of the jobs that are 
lost, because of the businesses, the manufacturing companies that are 
going out of business because of these rules by the EPA and other 
agencies, but it is Congress' responsibility to litigate and Congress' 
responsibility to set budgets and control the purse strings.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition 
to H.R. 3438, the Require Evaluation Before Implementing Executive 
Wishlists

[[Page 13270]]

Act of 2016, also known as the REVIEW Act, which would automatically 
stay so-called high-impact rules that a party challenges by filing suit 
in court.
  Now, this is a very arcane and esoteric subject that my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle will literally put you to sleep listening 
to their arguments about it. But make no mistake about it, this is a 
very important piece of legislation that would torpedo the good work of 
legislators who are trying to protect the health, safety, and well-
being of the American people.
  Simply put, this bill is yet another reckless measure designed to 
delay the implementation of the most important rules protecting the 
health, safety, and financial well-being of everyday people. Passage of 
this bill will only benefit the pocketbooks of the large corporations 
in the top 1 percent while the American people will be left unprotected 
from corporate greed.
  Other than satisfying the insatiable thirst of the superwealthy for 
more and more and more profits to stuff into their already fat and 
overflowing pockets, this bill is completely unnecessary and is not in 
the best interest of the greater good.
  Under current law, both courts and the agency issuing a rule may stay 
the effective date of a final rule. While agencies have broad 
discretion in postponing the effective date of a rule, a court 
considers several factors in deciding whether to stay a rule, including 
whether the party is likely to succeed on the merits.
  In 2009, the Supreme Court, in Nken v. Holder, instructed courts to 
consider four factors when deciding whether to issue a stay: One, 
whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely 
to succeed on the merits; two, whether the applicant will be 
irreparably injured absent a stay; three, whether the issuance of the 
stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the 
proceedings; and, four, where the public interest lies.
  The REVIEW Act would discard this very flexible and practical test in 
favor of an inflexible and unyielding requirement that agencies 
automatically delay the effective date of any rule exceeding $1 billion 
in costs that is challenged in court regardless of whether the party 
challenging the rule has any likelihood of success on the merits, is 
actually harmed by the rule, or whether staying the rule would be 
contrary to the public interest.

                              {time}  1645

  It is virtually guaranteed that every high-impact rule would be 
delayed through litigation challenges, regardless of whether the 
litigation is meritorious. Frivolous litigation would almost certainly 
create years of delays for these rules which, in many cases, have 
already taken years to promulgate.
  But the bill wouldn't just simply apply to lifesaving rules that 
exceed $1 billion in costs that keep our air clean and our children 
safe. Rather, it would likely apply to transfer rules which involve the 
transfer of funds for budgetary programs authorized by Congress, such 
as transfer rules involving the Medicare program or the Federal Pell 
Grant Program, as the Office of Management and Budget has clarified.
  Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill because it is a dangerous 
solution to a nonexistent problem. Any party affected by a final agency 
action may challenge that action in court while agencies may also delay 
the effective date of rules on a discretionary basis. Professor William 
Funk, a leading administrative law expert, explains that existing law 
``weeds out frivolous claims and takes account of both the cost of the 
rule and the benefits of the rule that would be avoided by granting the 
stay.'' Absent any evidence whatsoever that courts have inappropriately 
refused to grant stays, I am confident that existing law provides 
adequate protection.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and make 
in order any of the amendments that you will hear hereafter.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the REVIEW 
Act. Since 2009, this administration has imposed almost 21,000 rules 
and regulations on U.S. families and job creators. Of those, over 200 
are major regulations, costing $108 billion annually, $22 billion of 
that coming from 43 major rules just last year.
  These regulations suffocate opportunity and economic freedom. Whether 
it is EPA's rule that will double the electricity bills of hardworking 
families or EPA's waters of the U.S. Federal land grab rule that will 
force landowners to get permission from the Federal Government in order 
to make decisions on their land or face onerous fines, it is time to 
rein in the Federal control over our lives that is hurting people.
  In my district in western central Missouri, one of these rules, the 
Department of Labor's overtime rule, which is set to go into effect 
December 1, will hurt everyday Americans, raising the cost of living 
while reducing wages and incomes.
  A senior care group in my district has told me that this rule will 
likely lead to a reduction in hiring, meaning fewer seniors will be 
able to get care. Schools have expressed concerns that they will be 
forced to cut staff and limit the educational services and 
extracurricular activities they provide for our students. A bank in my 
district will have to transition 13 of their salaried tellers on staff 
to hourly wage workers in order to assume the $129,000 in anticipated 
compliance costs from this rule. Religious organizations have also told 
me that they will have to cut staff, reducing their ability to provide 
charitable services to those in need.
  Washington's top-down mandates are hurting our friends and our 
neighbors. We need this bill to stop these overbearing regulations 
which cripple industries and harm American livelihoods. Instead of 
stifling opportunity, we should remove barriers to job creation and 
economic prosperity. I urge my colleagues to support this important 
piece of legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding.
  The majority argues that H.R. 3438 responds to cases where a court 
vacates a rule after it has already gone into effect. The majority 
argues that H.R. 3438 responds to the Supreme Court's 2015 decision in 
Michigan v. EPA, where the Court remanded a clean air rule adopted by 
the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce power plants' emissions 
of hazardous air pollutants.
  As leading administrator and law professor William Funk has noted, 
the Court remanded the rule rather than vacating it altogether because 
the ``grounds upon which the Supreme Court found the rule invalid 
appear to be easily remedied.'' He further observes that delaying this 
rule would cost the U.S. economy $20 to $80 billion per year.
  Importantly, the industry and State challengers to the EPA's rule at 
issue in Michigan v. EPA did not seek judicial stay of the rule prior 
to the Court's remand. Perhaps that is because they knew it would fail 
and that they could not meet the judicial test requiring showings of 
irreparable harm and likelihood of success on the merits.
  These challengers are hardly in a good position to complain now about 
the rule being found unlawful in one respect but not unlawful with 
respect to every other issue raised by the challengers when they 
themselves even failed to ask the Court to stay the rule beforehand.
  Furthermore, notwithstanding the majority's misleading claims that 
this rule caused irreparable harm and cost billions of dollars to 
implement while only offering potential benefits in the millions of 
dollars, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which is the 
same entity that would be charged with conducting cost estimates under 
the bill, states that annual benefits of the rule range between $30 and 
$90 billion, very much dwarfing its annual cost of $9.6 billion.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

[[Page 13271]]


  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member.
  Following the Court's remand, the EPA has reaffirmed its original 
finding that it is appropriate to achieve deep cuts in mercury and up 
to 7 dozen hazardous air pollutants such as lead, arsenic, and benzene 
from coal-burning power plants even after considering cost, which was 
the only issue in the Supreme Court's remand of the case.
  This rule delivers immense benefits to Americans, with monetized 
benefits greatly outweighing compliance costs. An automatic stay 
brought by the REVIEW Act would result in all of those health hazards--
4,200 premature deaths, 2,800 cases of chronic bronchitis, and on and 
on and on. The automatic stay brought by the REVIEW Act, if it passes, 
would result in so many health hazards occurring to Americans and 
health costs being borne by the public after the rules compliance date.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this ill-founded and ill-
conceived piece of legislation.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, there is broad opposition to H.R. 3438. In the context 
of a veto threat, the Obama administration notes in its Statement of 
Administration Policy that H.R. 3438 would ``promote unwarranted 
litigation, introduce harmful delay, and, in many cases, thwart 
implementation of statutory mandates and execution of duly enacted 
laws,'' and would also ``increase business uncertainty and undermine 
much-needed protections for the American public, including critical 
rules that provide financial reform and protect public health, food 
safety, and the environment.''
  The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, which includes more than 150 
diverse labor, consumer, public health, food safety, financial reform, 
faith, environmental, and scientific integrity groups representing 
millions of Americans, strongly opposes H.R. 3438, stating that it 
``will make the single biggest problem in our current regulatory 
process, namely, excessive and out of control regulatory delays, even 
worse.''
  Other leading consumer and public interest groups strongly oppose 
this misguided legislation, noting that, ``like numerous other anti-
regulatory bills,'' H.R. 3438 ``further tilts the regulatory process in 
favor of corporate special interests by creating more opportunities for 
the manipulation and abuse of the process to their benefit and at the 
expense of protecting consumers, working families, and other vulnerable 
communities.''
  Indeed, this bill is no different than the many other antiregulatory 
bills considered this Congress. It is a dangerous solution to a problem 
that is nonexistent. Accordingly, I urge each and every one of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to resist this and oppose H.R. 
3438.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The gentleman from Michigan makes reference to the administration's 
Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 3438. The administration 
opposes this bill precisely because it would be effective. It would 
help to halt their regulatory overreach. The administration claims that 
this bill is unnecessary because rulemaking procedures already exist to 
ensure that new rules are as least burdensome as possible and produce a 
net benefit, and courts already can issue judicial stays. But the whole 
reason for this legislation is that the administration is ignoring such 
procedures. The courts rarely issue judicial stays, and by the time the 
courts finally strike down illegal rules, it is too late.
  For example, the administration lost in Michigan v. EPA because it 
failed to consider the costs and benefits of the rule which imposed 
about $10 billion in costs to achieve just $4 to $6 million in 
benefits. By the time the Court issued the ruling, huge sums had 
already been spent on compliance.
  These are resources that otherwise could have gone into productive 
jobs and investment rather than complying with an illegal rule. Our 
economy cannot afford this waste. Do not be fooled by the 
administration's fear-mongering about delaying rules addressing public 
safety emergencies. It is difficult to imagine a public safety 
emergency requiring a billion-dollar rule to solve.
  Indeed, we reviewed a list of billion-dollar rules issued since 2000, 
and not one responds to an immediate public safety emergency. Even if 
there were such a case, imposing costs of that magnitude for whatever 
reason should be made by elected representatives accountable to the 
people, not agency bureaucrats. Instead of recommending a veto of this 
bill, the President's senior advisers should recommend agencies 
faithfully follow rulemaking procedures so Congress does not have to 
shorten the leash even further.
  Billion-dollar rules are a fast-growing plague inflicted by 
Washington's out-of-control regulators on small businesses and ordinary 
citizens throughout the land. According to a 2014 report by the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, over 30 billion-dollar rules since the year 2000 
are imposing roughly $100 billion a year in costs on our struggling 
economy. The American Action Forum reports that the Obama 
administration plans to impose at least another $113 billion in 
regulatory costs before it leaves office, and this is on top of the 
estimated $2 trillion-plus in total costs from Washington regulators 
that are crushing our economy and strangling economic recovery.

                              {time}  1700

  It is time for measures that shout, ``Stop,'' to Washington's 
regulators and force them to find a better way. That is exactly what 
this bill does. It imposes automatic stays when new billion-dollar 
rules are challenged in court so small businesses and hardworking 
Americans don't have to bear the crushing cost of illegal rules while 
they pursue their rights in court. It creates a powerful incentive for 
agencies tempted to zoom past the billion-dollar mark to stop, turn 
around, and find a less costly way to achieve the same benefits for the 
American people.
  Hopefully, once this bill becomes law, we will stop seeing needless 
billion-dollar rules. And if we ever do need a billion-dollar-a-year 
solution, this bill will help make sure regulators leave it to the 
accountable Members of Congress to make such monumental policy 
decisions by statute.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment under the 5-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, printed in 
the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall 
be considered as read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 3438

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Require Evaluation before 
     Implementing Executive Wishlists Act of 2016'' or as the 
     ``REVIEW Act of 2016''.

     SEC. 2. RELIEF PENDING REVIEW.

       Section 705 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``When'' and inserting the following:
       ``(a) In General.--When''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) High-Impact Rules.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `Administrator' means the Administrator of 
     the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the 
     Office of Management and Budget; and
       ``(B) the term `high-impact rule' means any rule that the 
     Administrator determines may impose an annual cost on the 
     economy of not less than $1,000,000,000.
       ``(2) Identification.--A final rule may not be published or 
     take effect until the agency making

[[Page 13272]]

     the rule submits the rule to the Administrator and the 
     Administrator makes a determination as to whether the rule is 
     a high-impact rule, which shall be published by the agency 
     with the final rule.
       ``(3) Relief.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     an agency shall postpone the effective date of a high-impact 
     rule of the agency until the final disposition of all actions 
     seeking judicial review of the rule.
       ``(B) Failure to timely seek judicial review.--
     Notwithstanding section 553(d), if no person seeks judicial 
     review of a high-impact rule--
       ``(i) during any period explicitly provided for judicial 
     review under the statute authorizing the making of the rule; 
     or
       ``(ii) if no such period is explicitly provided for, during 
     the 60-day period beginning on the date on which the high-
     impact rule is published in the Federal Register,

     the high-impact rule may take effect as early as the date on 
     which the applicable period ends.
       ``(4) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection may 
     be construed to impose any limitation under law on any court 
     against the issuance of any order enjoining the 
     implementation of any rule.''.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 114-
777. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 
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.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Cicilline

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
House Report 114-777.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 19, strike ``; and'' and insert a semicolon.
       Page 3, line 21, insert after ``rule'' the following: 
     ``(other than an excepted rule)''.
       Page 3, line 23, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 3, insert after line 23 the following:
       (C) the term ``excepted rule'' means any rule that would 
     reduce the cost of healthcare for a person over the age of 
     65.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 875, the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Cicilline) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, my amendment would exempt rules that reduce 
the cost of health care for Americans over the age of 65 from the 
unnecessary requirements of this legislation.
  Mr. Chair, our country's seniors face growing healthcare costs, and 
any delays in rules that could reduce those costs would be a terrible 
burden to place on America's seniors.
  According to the latest retiree healthcare cost estimates from 
Fidelity Benefits Consulting, a 65-year-old couple retiring this year 
will need an average of $260,000 in today's dollars to cover medical 
expenses throughout their retirement. That applies only to retirees 
with traditional Medicare insurance coverage and does not include costs 
associated with nursing home care.
  Fidelity estimates that a 65-year-old couple would need an additional 
$130,000 to ensure against long-term care expenses. That is because the 
median annual cost for the base rent at an assisted living community is 
about $41,000 per year. The average annual cost for skilled nursing is 
about $71,000 per year. Because much long-term care is provided by 
unpaid family caregivers or is covered by Medicaid, the average 
senior's lifetime out-of-pocket long-term care expenses are about 
$50,000.
  The legislation before us would open up the rulemaking process to 
lengthy delay tactics, allowing companies or entities opposed to 
certain rules to take advantage of the court system to stymie final 
rulemaking for years. Our seniors don't have years to wait on policies 
that could save them precious dollars in their retirement. There is 
already a robust process in place for opponents to challenge them in 
court, with the decision whether to delay a rule rightly placed in the 
court's hands.
  This legislation is a gift to special interests who will benefit from 
the delay of the imposition of rules that reduce costs for seniors. 
These special interests are willing to spend millions of dollars and 
waste years fighting regulations that will benefit the American people, 
particularly our seniors.
  High-impact rules typically involve either the transfer of Federal 
funds or rules with billions of dollars in benefits to the public. 
During fiscal year 2014, for example, executive branch agencies adopted 
53 major rules, 35 of which were transfer rules. According to the 
Office of Management and Budget, transfer rules merely implement 
Federal budgetary programs as required or authorized by Congress, such 
as rules associated with the Medicare program and the Federal Pell 
Grant Program.
  There are 44.9 million seniors on Medicare in this country. Frivolous 
lawsuits to delay rules that will increase benefits or those that will 
produce cost savings would be a grave betrayal of the promise that we 
have made to keep America's seniors healthy.
  My amendment simply ensures that any rule that reduces costs of 
health care for Americans 65 or older will not be subject to 
unnecessary delays.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the REVIEW Act applies to all new 
billion-dollar rules. That is for one simple reason: the harm that 
wasting billions of dollars in unnecessary compliance costs does to job 
creation, productive investment, and economic recovery. Those costs 
should not have to be incurred during ultimately successful litigation 
challenging new billion-dollar rules.
  The amendment is concerned primarily with transfer rules that 
authorize the flow of funding between Federal healthcare accounts for 
seniors. With respect to those rules, there is no need for concern that 
the bill would impede the operation of those rules. To my knowledge, 
there has never been a billion-dollar transfer rule, much less one 
affecting seniors, that has been challenged in court, nor am I am aware 
of any reason to expect that one ever will be challenged. The bill, of 
course, only requires a stay if a timely challenge to a rule is brought 
in court.
  As for other rules that may be within the amendment's scope, if such 
rules are needed, then agencies can avoid the bill's application by 
coming up with effective regulations that cost less than $1 billion a 
year. That is a goal to be pursued, not blocked.
  If, in an unusual case, the needed solution truly must cost a billion 
dollars a year or more, then the decision to adopt that solution is a 
decision Congress should make, not an agency. Congress, moreover, can 
make that decision without hindrance of litigation through fair and 
open consideration and debate by the people's Representatives, not 
unaccountable bureaucrats.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, the chairman just made my point. This 
legislation, as currently written, would apply to all rules, including 
rules that would reduce the cost of health care for America's seniors. 
In fact, the OMB says--and I repeat--that a transfer rule merely 
implements Federal budgetary programs, as required or authorized by 
Congress, such as rules associated with the Medicare program and the 
Federal Pell Grant Program.
  So we know, in fact, that, according to OMB, the Medicare program is 
considered part of the transfer rule. So this legislation, as currently 
written, means that all rules, including any rule that is promulgated 
that would reduce costs for seniors would, in fact, be subjected to 
this delay.
  My amendment is necessary, by the chairman's own admission. We need

[[Page 13273]]

this amendment so that we can at least exempt out those provisions that 
might produce real savings for America's seniors.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. DelBene

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
House Report 114-777.
  Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 19, strike ``; and'' and insert a semicolon.
       Page 3, line 21, insert after ``rule'' the following: 
     ``(other than an excepted rule)''.
       Page 3, line 23, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 3, insert after line 23 the following:
       (C) the term ``excepted rule'' means any rule that would 
     increase college affordability.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 875, the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. DelBene) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.
  Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 
3438, which would exempt from the bill any rule related to increasing 
the affordability of higher education.
  It is no secret that the rising cost of college is posing grave 
challenges to students and families across the country. Every year, 
Americans are being forced to take out higher loan amounts to pay for 
tuition, fees, textbooks, and housing. Today, student debt totals more 
than $1.3 trillion.
  In my home State of Washington, 56 percent of graduates from 4-year 
universities leave school with debt and, on average, those students owe 
more than $23,000 upon graduation. At a time when Americans owe more in 
student loan debt than credit card debt, it is more critical than ever 
that we prioritize college affordability for all.
  The issue is personal for me. When I was young, my father lost his 
job, and my parents never got back on track financially. But thanks to 
student loans and financial aid, I was still able to get a great 
education. With that education and hard work, I was able to build a 
successful career and be in the position that I am in today.
  We need to make sure students have the same opportunities that were 
available to us. That starts by protecting the Department of 
Education's ability to administer vital financial aid programs like 
Pell grants and Federal student loans. These programs have enabled 
millions of low-income students to attend college. If we restrict the 
Department's ability to administer them, we are also endangering the 
millions of hardworking Americans who rely on their critical support.
  This year alone, more than 8.4 million low-income students will 
benefit from Pell grants. Over 20 million student loans will be issued 
to help students and families afford the cost of college. We cannot put 
these essential resources at risk. They help ensure higher education is 
never out of reach, and they must be protected.
  That is why I am offering this straightforward and narrowly tailored 
amendment. It simply protects the Department of Education's ability to 
administer Federal student aid programs that keep college affordable 
and accessible to all.
  Today, too many families are struggling to put their kids through 
college, and we should be making it easier for them, not harder. My 
amendment will prevent the underlying bill from threatening the vital 
assistance offered each year through Pell grants, student loans, and 
other forms of financial aid.
  Particularly as students are heading back to school in communities 
across the country, I urge my colleagues to support this important 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MARINO. Once again, the REVIEW Act applies to all new billion-
dollar rules. The bill's relief is urgently needed. Failures to require 
stays of billion-dollar rules during litigation wastes billions of 
dollars in unnecessary compliance costs and resources that are 
needlessly paid. Those costs are essential to job creation, productive 
investment, and economic recovery. These costs should not have to be 
incurred during ultimate successful litigation challenging new billion-
dollar rules.
  If education rules like those the amendment would carve out are 
needed, the relevant agencies can avoid the bill's application by 
coming up with effective regulations that cost less than $1 billion a 
year. That is a goal to be pursued, not blocked, especially when it is 
the presence in higher education that is actually driving up much of 
the cost concerning the upward spiral in the cost of higher education.
  If, in an unusual case, a needed solution truly must cost a billion 
dollars a year or more, then, once again, the decision to adopt that 
solution is a decision Congress should make, not an agency.
  With all due respect, my friend and I have worked on legislation 
together. I have a list here of the billion-dollar rules and there is 
nothing--not one name on here--that has anything to do with the 
Department of Education.
  Furthermore, I would love to work on a piece of legislation reducing 
the cost of post-high school education with my colleague. I didn't 
start college until after I was 30. My wife and I put me through 
college and law school. We borrowed money through grants and anything 
we could do. I know the cost of education was expensive back then, and 
I am stymied at what it is now, but this is not the mechanism to do 
that.
  This legislation that Republicans brought to the floor--my 
legislation--deals with overseeing the government and the regulation 
that is crushing jobs in this country. Congress has the responsibility, 
as I repeat, to make the laws and to control the purse strings.
  So I offer again to my good friend an opportunity to work with her on 
lowering the cost of education in this country, but I think it should 
be in a separate piece of legislation and not this. I ask my colleagues 
to not support the amendment and I ask them to support the overall 
legislation that we brought to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Chairman, the bill, as it exists, doesn't require 
challenges to have any merit, so it opens the door to frivolous 
lawsuits. The Office of Management and Budget did say that this would 
hit the billion-dollar threshold.
  I do think that it is very, very important that we support my 
amendment so that we protect students today from harmful, unintended 
consequences of the REVIEW Act. I want to thank my colleague for being 
willing to work together on ways to improve college affordability going 
forward. I would ask that he support this amendment as part of that, 
but I would be happy to work with him on other issues as well.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1715

  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the

[[Page 13274]]

amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington will be postponed.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments printed in House Report 114-777 on which 
further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island.
  Amendment No. 2 by Ms. DelBene of Washington.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Cicilline

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Cicilline) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189, 
noes 232, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 532]

                               AYES--189

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     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
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     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.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Katko
     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
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     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

                               NOES--232

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     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
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     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
     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
     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
     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
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     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
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Brooks (AL)
     Moore
     Palmer
     Poe (TX)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schrader
     Tiberi
     Walters, Mimi

                              {time}  1742

  Messrs. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, WEBSTER of Florida, WESTERMAN, 
REICHERT, HURT of Virginia, BURGESS, BILIRAKIS, COLLINS of New York, 
Ms. STEFANIK, Messrs. WOODALL, GOODLATTE, JOLLY, Ms. GRANGER, and Mr. 
MOOLENAAR changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, DENT, BLUM, CURBELO of Florida, and 
KATKO changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. DelBene

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. 
DelBene) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184, 
noes 237, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 533]

                               AYES--184

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     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
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)

[[Page 13275]]


     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
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     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

                               NOES--237

     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
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Farr
     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
     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 (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
     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
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     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
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bass
     Moore
     Poe (TX)
     Rice (NY)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schrader
     Tiberi
     Walters, Mimi


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1746

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Rodney Davis of Illinois) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Chair 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
3438) to amend title 5, United States Code, to postpone the effective 
date of high-impact rules pending judicial review, and, pursuant to 
House Resolution 875, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.

                              {time}  1745


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit 
at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I am opposed in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Thompson of Mississippi moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     3438 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       Page 3, line 21, insert after ``rule'' the following: 
     ``(except as provided in subsection (c))''.
       Page 5, insert after ``of any rule.'' on line 4 the 
     following:
       ``(c) Exception for Rules to Decrease the Vulnerability of 
     the Public to a Terrorist Attack.--The provisions of 
     subsection (b) do not apply in the case of a rule that 
     pertains to protecting the Nation against security 
     threats.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment 
to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to the 
committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final 
passage, as amended.
  Just over a week ago, the Nation observed the 15th anniversary of the 
September 11, 2001, terrorist attack. On that day, terror and hate not 
only took the lives of 3,000 innocent people, but also inflicted $3.3 
trillion in economic damage to our Nation. In response to this 
unprecedented attack on U.S. soil, the Department of Homeland Security 
was established.
  To be successful, DHS must work with State, local, and private sector 
partners. Many of DHS's programs are voluntary, but in some areas, 
where the threats are high and voluntary measures are inadequate, DHS 
utilizes Federal rulemaking.
  As we saw last weekend in Minnesota, New York, and New Jersey, the 
threat picture is constantly evolving. Today, the threat of individuals 
acting alone, inspired online by foreign and domestic terrorist groups, 
is arguably one of the greatest homeland security challenges we face. 
Our government needs to be able to respond to evolving threats like the 
``lone wolf'' threat.
  I am alarmed to see that, under this bill, critical action by the 
Department of Homeland Security could be indefinitely hamstrung, as 
protracted, possibly frivolous, legal challenges move through the 
courts. From a homeland security standpoint, there is no justification 
for putting arbitrary obstacles in the way of DHS when it needs to 
issue regulations to protect critical infrastructure from infiltration 
by terrorists, keep dangerous materials out of terrorists' hands, and 
secure the border, yet the underlying bill would do just that.
  Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit would provide for an exception to 
the rule in instances that ``pertain to protecting the Nation against 
security threats.'' There are things we can do to make the country more 
secure, but it seems that the majority lacks the will to do so.

[[Page 13276]]

  Earlier today, Democrats tried to get legislation to bar individuals 
on the no-fly terrorist watch list from buying guns considered. The 
majority blocked the legislation.
  Then we tried to get considered a measure that I authored to expand 
DHS' overseas screening and vetting operations to protect ISIL-trained 
European foreign fighters and other dangerous people from entering the 
United States. This measure was blocked, too.
  This morning, Mr. Speaker, in my committee, we received testimony 
from prominent law enforcement officials about how the availability of 
firearms put their officers and the citizens they protect in harm's 
way. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Austin, Texas, police chief testified 
that police chiefs are ``haunted'' by the threat posed by the 
``widespread availability of firearms in our country,'' which ``makes 
it possible for potentially dangerous persons to legally acquire 
weapons to cause mayhem and colossal casualties.''
  To this point, this past weekend, in a St. Cloud, Minnesota, mall, 10 
people, including a pregnant woman, were stabbed by a young man who is 
believed to have been radicalized by ISIL. Thankfully, all the injured 
individuals are expected to recover.
  These days, it is not too hard to imagine the carnage that could have 
been inflicted on this innocent population if the assailant had, 
instead, entered the mall with an AK-47 assault weapon and large-
capacity clips.
  This Congress must show leadership on the pressing homeland security 
challenges to the Nation. Standing in the way of the Department of 
Homeland Security, as it tries to protect our citizens, is the wrong 
thing to do.
  For these and a number of other reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members 
to vote ``aye'' on my motion to recommit.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, billion-dollar rules are among the worst offenses of the 
pen-and-phone Obama administration. This administration is using 
overreaching billion-dollar rules to insert EPA's water permitting 
agents into every American's backyard. It is using overreaching 
billion-dollar rules to shut down this country's cheap generation of 
electricity. It is using overreaching billion-dollar rules to impose 
unachievable ozone standards that will strangle economic opportunities 
in counties all over this Nation. Above all, wherever it can, it is 
using overreaching billion-dollar rules to execute end runs around 
Congress and achieve legislative ends it knows it cannot achieve in 
Congress.
  The Obama administration says, on spurious grounds, it will veto this 
bill.
  This motion to recommit tries to obstruct this bill by means of 
procedural obstruction. The House has already passed antiterrorism 
measures. Why do my colleagues across the aisle want to block this good 
bill?
  The legislation that we have passed is H.R. 4401, the Amplifying 
Local Efforts to Root Out Terror Act; H.R. 4820, the Combating 
Terrorist Recruitment Act; and H.R. 4407, the Counterterrorism Advisory 
Board Act. These were all almost unanimously passed. I sit on the 
Committee on Homeland Security. We have been passing good legislation, 
and we continue to pass good legislation.
  This administration and its allies on the other side of the aisle 
would rather let Congress duck accountability to the voters for 
billion-dollar decisions. It would rather give billion-dollar phones 
and pens to unaccountable bureaucrats up and down Pennsylvania Avenue 
so they can do things the voters cannot stop.
  The American people are telling us every day, ``Enough.'' I am 
telling President Obama and my colleagues, ``Enough.''
  Stand up for accountability. Stand up for the small-business owners 
and workers who are being crushed by Washington's bureaucratic billion-
dollar bullies who are against this motion and please vote for this 
bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 5-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-
minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered; passage of H.R. 5461; 
and suspending the rules and passing the following bills: H.R. 5859, 
H.R. 6007, H.R. 5977, H.R. 6014, and H.R. 5147.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 240, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 534]

                               AYES--182

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     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
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     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
     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
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     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

                               NOES--240

     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
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     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 (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline

[[Page 13277]]


     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     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
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     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
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Duffy
     Moore
     Poe (TX)
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Stivers
     Tiberi
     Walters, Mimi
     Yoder

                              {time}  1804

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CONYERS. 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 244, 
noes 180, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 535]

                               AYES--244

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     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
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     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
     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 (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
     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
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     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
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--180

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     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
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     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
     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
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     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--7

     Crenshaw
     Moore
     Poe (TX)
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Tiberi
     Walters, Mimi

                              {time}  1811

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________