[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 261-273]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 26, REGULATIONS FROM THE EXECUTIVE 
IN NEED OF SCRUTINY ACT OF 2017, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. 
 RES. 11, OBJECTING TO UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2334

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 22 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 22

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 26) to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, to provide that major rules of the executive 
     branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint 
     resolution of approval is enacted into law. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the 
     Minority Leader or their respective designees. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. No 
     amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the resolution (H. Res. 11) objecting to United 
     Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 as an obstacle to 
     Israeli-Palestinian peace, and for other purposes. 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 Foreign Affairs.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous materials on House Resolution 22, currently 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward 
this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for 
consideration of H. Res. 11, a resolution regarding United Nations 
Security Council Resolution 2334. It provides for 1 hour of debate on 
H. Res. 11, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of 
the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Additionally, this rule provides for consideration of legislation 
that I introduced, H.R. 26, the Regulations from the Executive in Need 
of Scrutiny, or REINS, Act. It makes in order 12 amendments from 
Members on both sides of the aisle, and provides for 1 hour of debate 
equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority 
leader.
  Yesterday, the Rules Committee received testimony from the Judiciary 
and Foreign Affairs Committees.
  Mr. Speaker, the beginning of this new Congress is a time of hope and 
a time to establish clear priorities and

[[Page 262]]

goals. This is a time to show the American people that we, as their 
elected representatives, will have the courage to stand on principles 
that made us worthy of their trust. This rule provides for two pieces 
of legislation that represent our commitment to the integrity and 
transparency of this institution.
  H. Res. 11, introduced by Chairman Royce and cosponsored by Ranking 
Member Engel, objects to United Nations Security Council Resolution 
2334 as an obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace. It calls for the 
resolution's repeal and makes clear that the current administration's 
failure to veto the U.N. resolution violated longstanding U.S. policy 
to protect Israel from such counterproductive U.N. resolutions. 
Importantly, it also provides a foundation for the next administration 
to take action to counteract the damaging effects of the U.N. Security 
Council resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I support H. Res. 11, yet it shouldn't be necessary. 
President Obama's refusal to veto the U.N. Security Council's 
resolution was a radical and dangerous departure from U.S. precedent.
  Prior to this most recent Security Council resolution, President 
Obama has exercised the veto power of the United States on every 
resolution relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His failure to 
do so this time jeopardizes and undermines our relationship with our 
strongest ally in the Middle East, and it has the potential to undercut 
the peace process.
  I stood in this Chamber numerous times before and demanded support 
for Israel, and I am going to do so here again today. I refuse to sit 
idly by and watch misguided anti-Israel policies take root.
  We have to take a stand. The administration's failure to act, to even 
participate in the vote, was an act of cowardice. It can't be erased, 
and we must take steps to address it. This resolution is a step in the 
right direction.
  As a new President is sworn in this month, I am hopeful that we, as 
the House of Representatives, and the United States will reaffirm our 
support of Israel and return to policies that strengthen the 
relationships between our two nations.
  Mr. Speaker, as the new Congress starts, we also must look at 
domestic policies and how to grow our economy. We are going to do that 
right here in the House by taking the lead on regulatory reform to help 
lift the burden of an intrusive government by jump-starting the 
economy.

                              {time}  1245

  As part of this effort, I introduced H.R. 26, the REINS Act. This 
bill was originally authored and introduced by former Congressman Geoff 
Davis in 2009. Last Congress, now-Senator Todd Young introduced the 
bill in the House. This Congress, I am proud to carry the torch for 
this commonsense legislation. I also thank Chairman Goodlatte and his 
staff for all of their hard work on this bill.
  Article I, section 1 of the United States Constitution grants 
legislative powers to Congress--we read about that right here on the 
floor this morning--but, for too long, Congress has ceded that power to 
the executive branch, which has resulted in an onslaught of regulation. 
This is a problem that we have seen under the administrations of both 
parties, and Members on both sides of the aisle should be concerned.
  In recent years, this problem has exploded. In 2015 alone, the 
executive branch issued over 3,000 rules and regulations, and 76 of 
these regulations were major regulations. Let me explain that. 
Unelected bureaucrats, without input from the American people or their 
Representatives in Congress, issued 76 major regulations that would 
impact our economy by more than $100 million each in 1 year alone. The 
consequences of these rules are massive. Even worse, we have seen this 
administration promote regulations with burdens that far outweigh their 
benefits. The REINS Act would require Federal agencies to submit major 
rules to Congress for approval. Under this bill, major rules would have 
to be accepted by both Chambers and signed by the President to become 
effective.
  This bill restores accountability to the legislative process and 
ensures that lawmakers, not nameless bureaucrats, are the ones making 
the laws, just like our Constitution outlines. We have seen the harm 
that can come from an out-of-control regulatory regime. Right now, 
hardworking Americans across the country are paying the price. In fact, 
on average, each U.S. household is bearing an annual economic weight of 
$15,000 in regulatory burdens. The oppressive costs of regulation, 
coupled with the impact on jobs, demand action.
  One regulation, put forth by the Environmental Protection Agency in 
2015, would have cost my home State of Georgia over 11,000 jobs; and we 
are all familiar with the waters of the United States rule, which, 
essentially, asserted authority over all groundwater in the country. If 
you have been to northeast Georgia, you know that water collects in 
pools and puddles and streams at certain times of the year. If all of 
that were to be regulated under this rule, it would be a disaster for 
not only my district but for all of the country, but that is what this 
administration has tried to do. That rule has been halted by a court, 
but were it to go into effect, it would cut farmers, ranchers, 
Realtors, and small businesses off at the knees.
  With the number of major rules this administration has propagated, I 
could far exceed my time in just illustrating the problems these 
regulations can create; but, with the REINS Act, we have a chance to 
carve out a better way in going forward. The American people elected 
us, in this body, to represent them. The REINS Act allows their voices 
to be heard more clearly.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't matter what party is in the executive 
branch because the legislative branch is the one that makes and accepts 
the bills, not the unelected bureaucrats. This bill creates a sensible 
way to move forward with legislative business while better protecting 
our economy from suffocating regulations that Americans never voted to 
enact.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for yielding the 
customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, before I speak on today's legislation, I want to take a 
moment to express my continued deep concern and uneasiness about the 
Russian hacking in order to influence the outcome of the 2016 
Presidential election and the deeply troublesome response from our 
President-elect.
  American democracy was attacked, in 2016, by Russian hackers who 
sought to tip our Presidential election in favor of Donald Trump. That 
is not I who is speaking--that is the CIA, the FBI, and 14 other United 
States intelligence agencies that have reached a clear consensus on 
this matter. Yet, even in the face of the overwhelming evidence, 
President-elect Trump has continued to sow seeds of confusion by 
publicly attacking and trying to discredit our country's intelligence 
agencies and the brave men and women who risk their lives every day to 
keep us safe.
  Today, intelligence officials are testifying before the Senate on 
this matter. In one of his most alarming actions yet, President-elect 
Trump has said that he would rather trust the words of WikiLeaks 
founder Julian Assange--an accused sex offender, who is holed up in the 
Ecuadorian Embassy in the U.K.--than the consensus of the Directors of 
the U.S. intelligence agencies. When Speaker Ryan was asked about 
Julian Assange, he called him a sycophant for Russia who leaks, steals 
data, and compromises national security. Yet, America's next President 
puts more faith in him than in the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies that 
he will soon oversee.
  This is not normal behavior by a President-elect, let alone by a 
President, and we cannot allow it to become normal. I appeal to my 
fellow Members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats--and 
especially the Republican leadership--to reach out to the President-
elect and ensure that there is a clear understanding about how damaging 
these statements and actions

[[Page 263]]

are to America's credibility, to our national security, and to the 
morale and responsibilities of our intelligence agencies. I appeal to 
my colleagues to get him help now.
  America faces serious threats across the globe, and we cannot afford 
to have a Commander in Chief at war with the very intelligence agencies 
that are responsible for keeping our country safe. Whatever his 
motivation, President-elect Trump must clearly and unequivocally join 
Republicans and Democrats who seek answers. We need a bipartisan, 
independent commission to uncover the truth about Russian hacking, and 
we need all of our leaders to support it.
  It is time Mr. Trump's Twitter sideshow comes to an end. It only 
confirms what many of us feared during the campaign--that he is 
temperamentally unfit to be President. We must be united in protecting 
the integrity of our elections against Russians and all foreign 
influence.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, let me get to the underlying bills.
  I rise in strong opposition to this rule, which provides for the 
consideration of H.R. 26, the REINS Act, under a structured process, 
and for H. Res. 11, a resolution objecting to a recent United Nations 
Security Council resolution on Israel, under a completely closed 
process.
  Before I get into discussing the merits of the bill, Mr. Speaker, I 
would like to first express some serious concern with the process used 
to rush this legislation to the floor. The deadline for amendments to 
be submitted to the Rules Committee was 10 a.m. on Tuesday. That is 2 
hours before Members were sworn in and before the 115th Congress 
officially began. Now, it is true that some of the amendments that were 
received after the deadline were made in order for consideration on the 
floor. But, really, is this the way we want to begin the consideration 
of legislation in this session of Congress? All Members should have had 
the opportunity to review the legislation and offer thoughtful 
amendments to the REINS Act. Wouldn't it have been something to have 
considered this bill under an open process? If you hadn't wanted to 
have done that, maybe you could have waited a couple of days before you 
brought it to the floor so that everybody, especially the freshmen, 
would have had an opportunity to evaluate it, and maybe they would have 
had some good ideas that they would have wanted to offer. But, here we 
are, right out of the gate, limiting the process and prohibiting 
Members from offering their ideas on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a process for reviewing rules promulgated by the 
executive branch. Congress should--and, indeed, can--examine 
regulations. Not all regulations are perfect. There are such things as 
bad regulations, and we should get rid of the ones that don't work. 
There is no debate on that. We have the ability to override regulations 
with new laws, and we have reauthorizations, appropriations, spending 
limitations, oversight hearings, investigations, GAO audits and 
studies, and the Congressional Review Act, just to name a few. We have 
a process that can and should work, but, because my Republican friends 
don't always get what they want, they want to undermine that process.
  I don't think my Republican colleagues are really interested in a 
thoughtful review of these regulations. In fact, I find it hard to 
believe that this Republican Congress even has the capacity to utilize 
the process that is outlined in this bill so as to consider the 100 or 
so regulations--some of which are highly technical and would require 
experts in specialized fields to analyze--that could come up in any 
given year; but I guess that is the point. This bill would make it 
nearly impossible to implement much-needed regulations that ensure 
consumer health and product safety, environmental protections, 
workplace safety, and financial protections, just to name a few.
  It would be a dream come true for industry and the wealthy, well-
connected Republican donor class who, for example, are interested in 
blocking all attempts to rein in Wall Street, to combat climate change, 
or to protect workers and their public health. One simply needs to look 
at the intensive lobbying that has gone into fighting these regulations 
and supporting antiregulation legislation like the REINS Act--groups 
like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Koch brothers, the American 
Petroleum Institute, just to name a few.
  Industry groups already use their seemingly unlimited resources to 
delay and prevent commonsense regulations from taking effect by tying 
rules up in court. This bill is just one additional tool for the 
wealthy and powerful to delay and destroy commonsense consumer 
protections.
  In short, this bill is not about creating jobs, so nobody should be 
fooled. It is about rewarding special interests, plain and simple. It 
is about making it more difficult to rein in Wall Street, to control 
polluters, or to protect workers. But this is in keeping with the 
philosophy of the Republican majority, so no one should be surprised. I 
urge my colleagues to strongly oppose this effort.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me just say a few words about the closed 
rule on H. Res. 11, the resolution condemning U.S. abstention on Israel 
at the U.N. Security Council.
  The peace and security of the State of Israel are priorities for 
every Member of Congress. Let us not try to obscure or confuse that 
truth. I can't think of any Member of this House who doesn't support 
peace in the Middle East and a safe and secure Israel. We may disagree 
about how to achieve those goals. Most of us believe that a two-state 
solution that provides peace, security, and prosperity to all of the 
peoples of the region--Israeli, Palestinian, and their Arab neighbors--
is the best option to securing a just, lasting, and durable peace.
  I have always voted in support of economic and military aid for 
Israel, but this does not mean that I always agree with the policies of 
a particular government in Tel Aviv. Sometimes I have been critical of 
the Israeli Government just as I am often critical of my own government 
and of other governments in the region.
  For the past four decades or more, the United States, under 
Republican and Democratic Presidents alike, has strongly opposed the 
expansion of settlements and the demolition of Palestinian homes. This 
has been a bipartisan consensus. We oppose the settlements as a 
violation of basic human rights; we oppose them as creating obstacles 
to a lasting two-state solution; and we oppose their rapid expansion as 
potentially creating a reality on the ground that, therefore, closes 
any possibility of a two-state solution.
  Since 1967, under Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, 
George H. W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama, the United 
States has voted in favor or has abstained on more than 50 U.N. 
Security Council resolutions that are critical of Israel, including 
resolutions on settlements or the demolition of Palestinian homes. Of 
the more than 30 abstentions that have been cast by the U.S. over 
nearly five decades, only one was cast by the Obama administration--
just one.
  H. Res. 11 does not precisely express that fact accurately. It 
implies that the U.S. always opposes or vetoes such regulations when 
that is hardly the case, nor does U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334 
impose a solution on Israel outside of direct bilateral negotiations to 
end the conflict. Some of us who are strong supporters of Israel have 
difficulties with some of the wording in H. Res. 11 on a 
straightforward factual basis.
  Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment to allow 
this House to debate a substitute offered by our colleagues, 
Congressman David Price, Congressman Eliot Engel, who is a cosponsor of 
H. Res. 11, and Congressman Gerry Connolly. The Price-Engel-Connolly 
amendment expresses the House's strong support for Israel, a two-state 
solution, and direct negotiations between the parties to the conflict. 
It is reasonable and balanced and is very much deserving of debate and 
this House's attention.
  Regrettably, the Republican majority on the House Rules Committee 
rejected allowing that amendment to be

[[Page 264]]

brought before the House and debated. Instead, it decided to begin this 
new year and this new Congress with yet another closed rule--in fact, 
the second closed rule this week with no debate, with no thoughtful 
alternatives, and with no ability of the Members of this body to 
deliberate such serious issues and choose between alternative 
proposals--just politics, politics, politics, politics as usual.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and to please send a clear 
message to House leaders that we would like to be able to debate 
reasonable alternatives and amendments to bills, like the Price-Engel-
Connolly amendment. If we don't start out the year demanding fairness 
and openness in our debates of important issues then I don't want to 
even speculate as to what the rest of the year will look like.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate my colleague's 
concerns. I think it is interesting to note, though, that, if he were 
concerned about a closed rule, there were many of us who were very 
concerned about a closed voice from America at the U.N. Security 
Council in not defending Israel.
  Also, on the other subject here, when we look at this going forward, 
there was a substitute that was actually offered in support of a 
resolution that does take a stand against what happened. It was not 
even mentioned in the substitute resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Byrne), a fellow member of the Rules Committee.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to share my strong support for this 
rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no greater friend to the United States than 
Israel. Israel is a beacon of hope in a very dangerous part of the 
world. They are an important economic and military partner of the 
United States, and they play a critical role when it comes to fighting 
radical Islamic terrorism.
  Given the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship, I was deeply 
disappointed to see the United States recently passed a flawed anti-
Israel resolution that will only make it more difficult to achieve 
peace in the Middle East. Even more disappointing was the fact that the 
United States just stood by and did nothing as it happened. Instead of 
vetoing the resolution, the United States Ambassador abstained from 
voting at all.
  In other words, the United States turned its back and looked the 
other way as the U.N. passed a flawed resolution attacking Israel. This 
represents a dangerous break in a longstanding and bipartisan policy to 
protect our sole democratic ally in the region from one-sided 
resolutions at the U.N.
  Let's be clear, this resolution does absolutely nothing to make peace 
more likely in the region. Instead, it muddies the water and only 
further complicates what is already a very complex issue.
  No solution to the ongoing problems with Israel and the Palestinian 
Authority is going to come from an international body like the United 
Nations telling them what to do. Any real solution must come through 
negotiations between the involved parties.
  Honestly, given the many blunders of the Obama administration on the 
world stage, I guess this most recent action shouldn't be all that 
surprising. But this action is one of the most irresponsible acts ever 
by an outgoing President. It will be a dark stain on an already 
disastrous legacy.
  By abstaining and allowing this resolution to pass, the Obama 
administration has upset decades of bipartisan policy as it relates to 
Israel and put a pathway to peace even further out of reach. Now is the 
time to be standing up for Israel, not turning away from them.
  It is my hope and my belief that under President-elect Trump the 
United States will once again stand arm in arm with Israel, and this 
resolution is an important step in that direction.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I hope that my colleague from Alabama uses some of that passion to 
convince the President-elect to stop cozying up to Vladimir Putin, who 
is no friend of democracy, no friend of Israel, and no friend of human 
rights.
  All we are trying to do here, Mr. Speaker, is to have a little 
democracy on the House floor. People can vote whichever way they want 
to vote. But the Rules Committee last night, staying true to form, 
actually denied us the ability to bring to the floor and debate an 
alternative, which we think is, quite frankly, more appropriate.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. 
If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order 
H. Res. 23, the David Price-Eliot Engel-Gerry Connolly resolution, to 
provide an alternative viewpoint.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution again was blocked by the Rules 
Committee, right along party line. Republicans said ``no'' to an open 
debate, even though it complies with all the rules of the House.
  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 Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss the proposal, I yield 3\1/2\ 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition 
to this closed rule and the underlying resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a legitimate debate to be had concerning U.N. 
Security Council Resolution 2334 and the United States' decision to 
abstain, but H. Res. 11 does not engage on those issues. Instead, it 
misrepresents the motives of the Obama administration as it made the 
tough decision to abstain, and it distorts the content of the U.N. 
Security Council resolution, apparently for political purposes. In 
fact, H. Res. 11 runs a real risk of undermining the credibility of the 
United States Congress as a proactive force working toward a two-state 
solution.
  As we enter a period of great geopolitical uncertainty, that 
principle has never been more important. In the face of new threats to 
democracy and stability, we must join together to reaffirm the most 
fundamental tenets of our foreign policy, including our strong and 
unwavering support for Israel. But we must also demonstrate to the 
world that we are still committed to diplomacy that defends human 
rights and promotes peace.
  In an effort to make that unifying affirmation, I, Mr. Engel, and Mr. 
Connolly offered an amendment in the Rules Committee yesterday in the 
nature of a substitute for H. Res. 11. Our substitute was intended to 
put forward clear, consensus language that omitted the flaws of the 
underlying legislation and reaffirmed America's longstanding commitment 
to Israel and to peace in the region.
  Our alternative didn't attempt to solve all the region's problems. We 
didn't pass judgment on recent events at the United Nations. In fact, 
those of us working on this resolution have varying views on that 
question. Nor did our resolution include politically charged attacks on 
the foreign policy priorities of the other party.
  Instead, our resolution is carefully designed to allow a broad, 
bipartisan consensus to speak in one voice in support of a two-state 
solution as the most credible pathway to peace.
  Unfortunately, this substitute amendment was not made in order by the 
Rules Committee, which instead moved forward with the closed rule we 
have before us. The alternative resolution has now been introduced 
separately as H. Res. 23, and it is available for cosponsorship.
  Today, however, we don't have that before us because of this rule.
  Members don't have the opportunity to vote on this or any other 
resolution that accurately affirms both our vital relationship with 
Israel and the longstanding bipartisan consensus that

[[Page 265]]

supports a viable two-state solution. Instead, we are presented with an 
extreme resolution that badly distorts the history--and we have heard 
that again here this morning--and that recklessly maligns U.S. 
diplomacy, all to embarrass the Obama administration for political 
gain. It is not worthy of this body.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question, ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the underlying resolution.-
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the distinguished chairman of the 
Rules Committee.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Collins), a bright young member of the Rules Committee who today is 
offering the rule on two very important issues that face this great 
Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I rise in support of the 
work that the Rules Committee did for the right reason and I will yield 
the right results.
  The American people spoke on November 8, and they asked for change, a 
change from business as usual. Mr. Speaker, that does mean you can look 
at geopolitical facts and draw a conclusion as opposed to geopolitical 
facts and ignore things that happen in the world, and that is exactly 
what we are doing here today.
  The American people no longer want unelected bureaucrats promulgating 
rules. They no longer want Washington to be so important in their 
lives. They want and need to be able to have an opportunity to make 
their own decisions and to work well within the law. They have spoken; 
and they want what I believe the Republican House, the Republican 
Senate, and a Republican President will bring to the country. It is 
called accountability.
  The REINS Act, sponsored by Mr. Collins today, addresses many of the 
issues that I just discussed. The legislation requires that a joint 
resolution must be approved and must be passed by both Chambers of 
Congress and signed by the President before any major new rule or 
regulation is promulgated by the executive branch before it can take 
place. These are rules written by the Congress, rules then associated 
and determined by the executive, but with the intent of Congress to 
make sure that the American people are not further harmed.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we have just heard an opportunity to discuss what 
was--this discussion that we are having about Israel and the 
administration. The bottom line is that the chairman of the Foreign 
Affairs Committee, Representative Ed Royce, came before the committee 
yesterday and said he really did not take issue with what they were 
doing. He would not support it because it did not address the problem 
that occurred when the Obama administration, for political purposes, 
hung the people of Israel and the State of Israel out for the world to 
condemn and take advantage of. It bypassed years and years of American 
foreign policy. It stunned not only Members of Congress, but it also 
stunned people who recognize that Israel is in a fight for their life.
  Mr. Speaker, we did not, based upon the determination of the Rules 
Committee, make in order the bill that they had asked for. They can 
bring it to the floor today, and we are not going to make it available 
because it does not even discuss the basic facts. That is, the 
President of the United States unilaterally allowed the State of 
Israel, who is a dear friend of the United States, to be hung out in 
the political and the economic world and the world of foreign affairs 
to be tarnished and taken advantage of.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here to say that we were appalled by what our 
government did and we are going to stand up and call it for what it is. 
America should always be a trusted friend to Israel, and we are doing 
exactly that here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I predict an overwhelming vote that will take place 
today to enunciate what we believe is correct and also what was wrong.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee said that the 
American people don't want business as usual. Yet, here we are on this 
opening week and what we see is business as usual, more Putin-like, 
closed rules coming to the floor. The 113th and the 114th Congresses 
were the two most closed Congresses in the history of the United 
States. Here we are beginning the new session with, again, this closed 
process.
  The Speaker, on opening day, made a promise to uphold the rights of 
the minority.
  Well, you know what?
  That means that the minority ought to be able to be heard on the 
House floor, that we ought to be able to bring amendments and 
substitutes to the floor. Yet, we get rejected time and time again.
  This is not the way the most deliberative body in the world should be 
run. This is not the way Congress should be run. By closing down this 
process the way the majority does, it does a great disservice to the 
American people
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to this rule, which 
was pushed through the Rules Committee as a closed rule and did not 
make in order an amendment, which I support, offered by my colleagues, 
Mr. Price, Mr. Connolly, and Mr. Engel.
  Their amendment, like H. Res. 11, objects to the U.N. Security 
Council Resolution 2334, which I believe was an unfair and one-sided 
resolution that placed undue blame upon the State of Israel for the 
impasse on peace negotiations.
  Like the Obama administration, I am frustrated by the lack of 
progress in recent years toward achieving a two-state solution to the 
Israeli-Palestinian crisis. However, I do not believe that the 
resolution passed by the Security Council contributes in any way to 
positively moving this process along.
  Let's not mistake the fact that the Palestinian Government, which 
currently includes the terrorist faction Hamas, has done little to 
support peace negotiations. By refusing to publicly recognize Israel's 
right to exist as a Jewish state, condoning terrorist activity and 
pursuing unilateral actions at international institutions in violation 
of the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians have continuously placed 
roadblocks to achieving peace.
  Let me be clear, the ongoing settlement activity sanctioned by the 
Israeli Government is also counterproductive to the peace process. If 
the Israeli Government wants to remain a beacon of freedom and 
democracy in the Middle East, they must recommit themselves to 
achieving a peaceful two-state solution where a Jewish Israel exists 
peacefully with the Palestinian state.
  With the events of recent years, I am extremely fearful that the two-
state solution is, if not dead, in critical condition. There are those 
within both the Israeli and Palestinian Governments who are actively 
working to ensure its demise. I think, as Members of Congress who 
strongly support Israel, we should be doing everything we can to convey 
to both the Israelis and the Palestinians that we will not stand by and 
watch them torpedo the hope of a peaceful solution to this crisis.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule 
governing these pieces of legislation and, in particular, the 
underlying legislation, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of 
Scrutiny, or REINS Act, H.R. 26.
  Mr. Speaker, during the first two terms that I have served in this 
Congress, the most common question posed to me by my constituents in 
central and eastern Kentucky is: What is the biggest surprise that you 
have confronted as a Member of Congress?
  Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, the biggest surprise that I have discovered 
as a Member of Congress is that Congress is no longer in charge. 
Regrettably, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in the executive 
branch run the country.

[[Page 266]]



                              {time}  1315

  Most of the laws that are enacted in this country at the Federal 
level come out of unelected bureaucrats in administrative agencies in 
the executive branch. Members of Congress, even though we are elected 
by the American people to be the lawmaking branch under Article I of 
the Constitution, we can't stop it. We can't stop these rules and 
regulations.
  So I am proud to have consistently supported the REINS Act because it 
reasserts the powers of this body and this Congress under Article I of 
the Constitution, which provides: ``All legislative powers herein 
granted shall be invested in a Congress of the United States, which 
shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.''
  What does this mean?
  The most important word in Article I of the Constitution is that 
first substantive word, ``all,'' implying that none of the legislative 
powers should be in any other branch of the Federal Government, and it 
certainly shouldn't be exercised by the executive branch. We know this 
as the nondelegation doctrine, the principle that Congress may not and 
should not delegate its administrative power to administrative 
agencies.
  The nondelegation doctrine forces a politically accountable Congress 
to make policy choices rather than leave this to unelected 
administrative officials. Yet what we have seen over the last several 
decades, and especially over the last 8 years, has been the rise of an 
unaccountable, out-of-control administrative state. Over time, 
legislative powers that are vested exclusively in Congress by the 
Constitution have been increasingly and unconstitutionally claimed, 
assumed, and exercised by the executive branch.
  Now unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats decide how you work, what 
goods and services you can buy and sell, and what you can do with your 
own property, all without accountability at the ballot box. So this 
state of affairs is fundamentally in conflict with the foundational, 
constitutional principle that Congress alone possesses the Federal 
legislative power.
  Look, this has enormous economic consequences. It is costly to our 
economy, and I don't have to go into that. The estimates are $1.8 
trillion in costs to the American economy. But the bigger issue is that 
none of these rules from these agencies have been approved--let alone, 
even considered--by Congress, even though they have a profound impact 
on the economy. So the measure we are considering today would simply 
require those regulations with the greatest economic impact to be 
approved by both Houses of Congress prior to their implementation.
  This has two positive outcomes. First, obviously, it has the effect 
of blocking costly rules. Secondly, and more importantly, it will no 
longer allow Members of Congress to delegate their constitutional 
responsibility to the executive branch.
  I will conclude, I heard my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
make the argument that Congress is not even interested in these 
regulations and we are not capable of seriously reviewing these rules. 
This is about making sure that experts with specialized expertise in 
the executive branch review and promulgate these rules. But what are we 
doing here if that is true? We should turn out the lights, lock the 
door and leave, and give the keys of the government to the executive 
branch.
  We had a Democratic administration over the last 8 years. We have a 
Republican administration coming. This is not about Republicans and 
Democrats. This is not a partisan issue. This is about the integrity of 
the institution of Congress. Let's stand up for the Congress and pass 
the REINS Act.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and 
for his steadfast commitment to ensuring global peace and security.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and H. Res. 11, which 
is a flawed and misguided effort as currently written. Let me be clear: 
H. Res. 11 would undermine longstanding and bipartisan U.S. policy on a 
two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This resolution 
is deeply flawed because it does not accurately portray U.S. policy on 
Israeli settlements. What is worse, this resolution completely 
mischaracterizes the United Nations Security Council resolution and the 
United States' abstention vote.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee shamefully rejected an 
alternative introduced by Congressman Price, Congressman Connolly, and 
Congressman Engel, which reflects current U.S. policy that would have 
reaffirmed our commitment to a negotiated and peaceful two-state 
solution. This is the only pathway to peace and security. It is 
appalling--but really, it is not surprising--that Republicans pushed 
through a closed rule and hurried this to the floor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, the lack of a debate is a disgrace. But you 
know what? There are some of us here who are not going to be gagged. 
There are some of here who are going to speak our mind, and there are 
some of us here who are going to put forth our views. That is our 
constitutional responsibility. We have the right to debate, whether you 
agree or disagree. It is really, really a very sad day for our 
democracy when bills like this come to the floor with rules like this 
which don't allow debate. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that the 
gentlewoman just got a chance to debate herself on the floor and to use 
that freedom of speech. That is what this floor is for.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Ross).
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding.
  I rise today to support this rule and to express my strong 
disapproval of President Obama and his administration's refusal to veto 
the anti-Israel resolution adopted by the United Nations Security 
Council on December 23, 2016.
  Since its establishment, Israel has worked tirelessly to forge peace 
with its neighbors. They have sought neither violence nor conflict. In 
fact, the territories discussed in the misguided U.N. resolution were 
areas Israel gained in self-defense during the 1967 Six-Day War. These 
areas include the Old City, with the Temple Mount and Western Wall, 
areas that, thousands of years ago, were the origin of the Israeli 
culture, heritage, and religion.
  Israel did not seek to take this land. Rather, when threatened by 
their Arab neighbors in 1967, they were forced to act in self-defense 
and repel these attacks. Since that time, Israel has successfully 
reached peaceful agreements with many of the Arab countries who, at 
that time, sought to wipe them off the map.
  Israel is the only thriving democracy in the Middle East who 
practices and protects human rights regardless of ethnicity, gender, 
religion, or citizenship. Additionally, the State of Israel has been 
committed to implementing initiatives to promote economic growth in the 
region, including creating opportunities for Palestinians and others. 
Israel is a shining example of taking care of those who are around 
them, even as they face constant threat of violence and terrorist 
attacks.
  I have been appalled over what has taken place under the direction of 
President Obama and Secretary Kerry and others within the 
administration. In response, I also introduced a resolution condemning 
these intolerable actions. By failing to direct the United States to 
veto the one-sided, anti-Israel U.N. Security Council resolution, the 
President turned his back on Israel and, as a result, turned his back 
on America.
  The anti-Israel resolution adopted by the U.N. Security Council 
threatens peace and stability in the Middle East. It will most likely 
incentivize further violence and radical boycotts.
  While President Obama and Secretary Kerry's long list of foreign 
policy failures has been well-documented over the years, none to date 
have been

[[Page 267]]

this deliberate and calculated. That is why I have come to the floor to 
support Chairman Royce's bipartisan resolution.
  As Republicans and Democrats alike have expressed their contempt for 
the President's lack of action, I look forward to working with my 
colleagues and President-elect Trump in correcting President Obama's 
anti-Israeli tactics as we work to form a stronger bond with Israel and 
as we work to promote peace in the Middle East.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say to Mr. Ross, my friend, I agree with just 
about every single thing you say about the great State of Israel, but I 
disagree with you about this resolution. Let me explain why.
  Israel is a Jewish democratic state. It has been our strong ally. We 
have supported it through thick and thin, most recently with a $38 
billion appropriation for their security over the next 10 years. I 
supported that. But this question that we face fundamentally comes down 
to whether we are going to support a two-state solution or move toward 
a one-state solution.
  The bottom line here is that settlement activity, every settlement 
that is made--600,000 settlers living in the West Bank and Jerusalem--
makes it ever-more difficult to achieve that two-state solution.
  President Obama, in his abstention on that veto, was acknowledging 
what has been the policy of this country. Ronald Reagan was opposed to 
settlements. You know, you get a family that settles anywhere, but in 
the West Bank, they put down roots. They are good people. They have a 
belief that the West Bank belongs Biblically to Israel. That is their 
view. Many politicians, including Netanyahu, appear to be embracing 
that. That is not the international position. It is not the unified 
position in Israel. Many folks in Israel think the settlements are a 
threat to the possibility of achieving the secure borders and the 
security of Israel and the maintenance of it as a democratic Jewish 
state.
  Mr. Speaker, there is another issue. With 600,000 settlers, with 4.5 
million Palestinians in the West Bank and also living in the State of 
Israel and 6.5 million Jewish members of the State of Israel, the 
demographics, long term, are going to reach a tipping point where there 
could be more Arab voters than there are Jewish voters, and then the 
State of Israel will have to make the decision Jewish or democratic. I 
want the State of Israel to continue to be that Jewish and democratic 
state that it is, and that is why I oppose this resolution.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, nothing unites Indiana's Sixth Congressional 
District quite like the simple phrase, ``we must stand with Israel.'' 
Throughout most of my rural district that has far more Christian 
churches than synagogues, Hoosiers are united in their support of the 
Jewish state.
  Hoosiers, myself included, were deeply distressed when the Obama 
administration stood silent as our great ally was demonized by the U.N. 
Israel is our most important friend in the region, and among America's 
best partners in the world. President Obama's silence and defection 
from Israel was unconscionable, and he has made our ally less safe and 
peace less likely.
  I am eager to vote today to send a strong signal to the world that 
the American people reject the U.N.'s one-sided, shortsighted U.N. 
Security Council resolution, and the American people stand united with 
Israel. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Israel is a special place in a troubled 
and storied landscape, sacred ground for three of the world's major 
regions.
  Israel's security is important to me and the people I represent. The 
Jewish homeland is the only democracy in this broader region of 
continuing conflict. I abhor the terrorist acts. Israel's security 
merits our support, which is why the Obama administration, with 
Congress' approval, just awarded an unprecedented amount of military 
aid over the next 10 years.
  But, unfortunately, Israel's future is being threatened by its own 
actions as well as by its adversaries. For years, reckless settlement 
expansion has been opposed by the United States and the rest of the 
world. They are confiscating Palestinian land in a way that is not just 
contrary to longstanding American policy, but is often illegal under 
Israeli law.
  It looks like the incoming Trump administration is reconsidering 50 
years of bipartisan policy, urged on by the extremist views of his 
proposed Ambassador whose position on settlement expansion is on the 
fringe of even Israeli politics.
  H. Res. 11 sends the wrong signal to the incoming President, to 
Israeli politicians, and especially to the Israeli people. It drives a 
wedge between Israel and the majority of Americans, including the 
majority of Jewish Americans. It weakens that special relationship and 
furthers the isolation of Israel, in evidence as the resolution was 
approved unanimously by the other 14 countries. Israel will become more 
vulnerable and, candidly, it will likely embolden forces that are 
hostile to the Jewish state.
  Instead of this resolution, we should reject the rule and support the 
resolution I cosponsored with Mr. Price that reaffirms our commitment 
to the longstanding American policy in support of a two-state solution 
and to help secure Israel's future as a stable, democratic, peaceful 
state.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the REINS Act and the rule that brings it to 
us, but I want to underscore the point made earlier by Mr. Barr.
  The REINS Act says that any regulation--that is, an act with the 
force of law--adopted by the executive branch and costs more than $100 
million must then be approved by Congress to take effect.
  As necessary as this bill is in the current environment, I am afraid 
it has got it completely backwards. Under the Constitution read on this 
floor today, it is not the role of the executive branch to make law and 
for the legislative branch then to approve or veto it. Quite the 
contrary, making law is the singular prerogative of the legislative 
branch; the executive then approves or vetoes that law.
  The REINS Act is necessary solely because for years Congress has 
improperly ceded its lawmaking powers to the executive, and it is time 
we restored the proper role of the legislative branch to make law and 
for the executive branch to faithfully execute it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mr. McGovern, for 
his leadership and for managing this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the closed rule for H. 
Res. 11.
  Ranking Member Engel, Mr. Price, and I have submitted an amendment to 
H. Res. 11 when it came before the Rules Committee. Our amendment 
offered a balanced approach and strongly reaffirmed longstanding, 
bipartisan principles that undergird U.S. policy on the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict. We introduced that amendment as a reasonable 
alternative that would allow all of us to convene the broadest possible 
bipartisan coalition here in the House.
  Personally, I believe the U.S. should have vetoed the U.N. Security 
Council resolution, and, notably, our resolution supported the U.S. 
veto of any one-sided or anti-Israel U.N. Security Council resolution 
or any resolution that seeks to impose a resolution to the conflict.
  Our resolution also condemned boycott and divestment campaigns and

[[Page 268]]

sanctions that target Israel, and it reiterated support for a 
negotiated settlement leading to a sustainable two-state solution that 
reaffirms Israel's right to exist as a democratic, Jewish state. We all 
agree that there can be no substitute for direct bilateral negotiations 
between Israel and the Palestinians. As we transition into a new 
administration and begin this new Congress, we should resist 
temptations to rewrite U.S. policy on the peace process in a misguided 
attempt to further drive a wedge where none should exist.
  The point of H. Res. 11 seems to be to bash Obama on the way out, and 
the fact that there are distortions on history and fact seem not to 
bother us. On this point, I would note that H. Res. 11 mentions 
settlements but makes no attempt to reaffirm longstanding U.S. 
opposition to those very settlements. It is more important now than 
ever that Congress maintain its consistent, bipartisan policy toward 
the conflict. We believe the carefully constructed language in our 
resolution did just that, but we were not allowed the opportunity by 
the Rules Committee to bring it before the floor for a vote.
  So I urge my colleagues, especially my Democratic colleagues, to vote 
``no'' on H. Res. 11 and the rule and to support and cosponsor H. Res. 
23, a much more bipartisan and balanced approach.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast), who is a great new Member.
  Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Georgia for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today because the current administration has 
literally undermined peace with their shameful failure to veto U.N. 
Resolution 2334.
  Condemning Israel is condemning the most peaceful country in the 
Middle East, and it is done simply to appease Palestinians--a group 
that has been historically defined by their responsibility for terror--
and this does not bring us one step closer to peace.
  I can tell you that after defending freedom in the U.S., I chose to 
volunteer alongside the Israeli Defense Forces because our countries do 
share the uncommon ideals of freedom, democracy, and mutual respect for 
all people. During my time with the IDF, I did learn at the tables of 
Israeli families just how much each one of them truly desire peace.
  By failing to veto this hateful U.N. resolution, the administration 
has sent a terrible message. We must counter this underhanded 
condemnation of Israel with a unanimous show of support today for H. 
Res. 11.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this House contains many friends of Israel, 
Republican and Democratic. Indeed, as long as I've been here, I have 
never found an enemy of Israel in this House. Certainly that friendship 
was very apparent when only a few weeks ago President Obama approved 
giving Israel $38 billion of American tax money in military assistance. 
But like the Knesset in Jerusalem, we sometimes do disagree about what 
the best way is to ensure peace and security, and lively debate is 
important to that.
  Unfortunately, this rule is about stifling Knesset-style debate. It 
restricts and denies any amendment and any alternative. This strict 
limitation on debate and this surprise presentation of today's measure 
with no public hearing and little warning show how fearful our 
Republican colleagues are of a legitimate discussion of this troubling 
issue. This is a horrible way to make critical foreign policy. It is 
only a step above doing it by tweets, which seems to be the approach of 
the day.
  Today's resolution, which purports to support Israeli security, 
actually undermines that security. It favors going it alone with the 
current Israeli Government in defiance of our other allies and the 14 
countries that unanimously voted for this Security Council measure.
  Isolation--more and more isolation--is not the way to protect Israel. 
Those who demonstrate their friendship with Israel by following Mr. 
Netanyahu on one right turn after another are boxing in America and 
Israel. He is moving us further and further to the extremes so that we 
eventually go off a cliff into chaos. As Tom Friedman noted in urging a 
negotiated two-state settlement: ``A West Bank on fire would become a 
recruitment tool for ISIS and Iran.''
  Vote for peace. Reject this resolution.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hollingsworth), who is another freshman 
that we welcome to the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule 
and the underlying REINS Act because I was sent to Congress to help 
hardworking Hoosiers create jobs, keep jobs, and raise wages. As a 
small-business owner myself, I understand how difficult it is to build 
a business in today's economy, and I want the Hoosiers of Indiana's 
Ninth Congressional District to have control over their futures without 
fear of unaccountable government bureaucrats with political agendas 
creating regulations to restrict their pursuit of success.
  I believe the REINS Act will ensure the constituents in Indiana's 
Ninth District will not only have a voice, but also a choice in the 
laws that govern this great Nation. Hardworking Hoosiers are shining 
examples of what Americans can do with the freedom to make their own 
economic decisions, and I don't want unelected bureaucrats in 
Washington impeding the job-creating growth of Indiana's and America's 
businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule 
and vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz), who is another new face that is 
looking forward to making a difference here.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the underlying legislation. 
Today the Federal Government's rules exceed 97,000 pages--the most in 
American history. So we ask ourselves: Do we really need 20 pages of 
rules governing vending machines? Could we cover fuel standards in less 
than 578 pages? Would the Union crumble if we didn't have 61 pages of 
regulations on residential dehumidifiers?
  Each of these rules has compliance costs that exceed $100 million.
  In my home State of Florida, we passed a version of the REINS Act. 
The result has been repeal or replacement of over 4,000 job-killing 
regulations. We can only make America great again if we make Americans 
free again--free from the tyranny of unelected Washington bureaucrats 
huddled in windowless cubicles dictating to Americans how they should 
live their lives, build their businesses, and protect their own 
property. Voters sent us here to drain the swamp, but with so many 
regulations, we would be lucky to get permission to mop up a puddle.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to address you and my 
privilege to be recognized by the gentleman from Georgia.
  I wanted to address this rule, and I share some of the sentiment that 
came from the gentleman from Massachusetts. I like to have open rules. 
I like to have open debates. I would like to have more than one debate 
on what we might do with this resolution that is before us. I would 
like to have a debate on the one-state solution versus the two-state 
solution because I believe that the two-state solution has run its 
course and we need to pack up our tools, ship those off to the side, 
and start all over again with a new look.
  I believe we needed to have a resolution that refreshes this in such 
a way that it completely rejected Resolution 2334, that vote that took 
place in the United Nations and said to the Trump administration: Let's 
start this fresh with a new look rather than a direction of being bound 
by implication to a two-state solution.

[[Page 269]]

  But that is not what we have ahead of us. What we have ahead of us is 
a resolution that has come to the floor under a closed rule that sends 
a lot of a good and right message to the rest of the world that America 
and the United States Congress reject what happened in the United 
Nations the other day and that decision to abstain from that vote. On 
the other hand, we really don't have the focus here to take on the rest 
of this issue. I am hopeful that we will.
  I will be introducing a resolution later today that addresses the 
two-state resolution in a way I would like to have done it with a 
resolution here.
  As I said to the gentleman from California, it is not my intent to 
blow up his bill or his initiative. I want to see the best success we 
can on what is going on here today.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), who is the distinguished 
chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, the problem with this U.N. 
resolution is not simply that it criticizes Israeli actions; it is that 
it is fundamentally one-sided. It is anti-Israel, and that is a 
departure from longstanding, bipartisan U.S. policy.
  U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334 does not address the 
Palestinian Authority's failure to end incitement of hatred. Frankly, 
they encourage it. The violence that we see against Israeli civilians 
comes from the encouragement of PA officials. It doesn't address the 
Palestinian Authority's continued payments. An incentive payment in 
their budget--over $300 million a year--is paid to those who would 
carry out attacks against Israeli civilians. The more mayhem you 
create, the longer the term you have in prison, the larger the stipend. 
That comes right out of the budget of the Palestinian Authority.
  The U.N. resolution did not call upon Palestinian leadership to 
fulfill their obligations towards negotiations. The Middle East Summit 
is planned next month. So, first, the administration abstains on this, 
and next month in France there is real concern that another damaging 
Security Council resolution should follow.
  That is why this dangerous policy must be rejected, hopefully 
unanimously, by this House.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield 
myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule. It is 
not fair. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question 
so that Mr. Price, Mr. Engel, and Mr. Connolly can bring up their 
alternative to H. Res. 11.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say, finally, that I am deeply concerned that the 
institution of Congress has been undermined time and time again by this 
tendency to be overly restrictive and outright closed. We are supposed 
to be the greatest deliberative body in the world, but the problem is 
we don't deliberate very much. Everything that is brought to this floor 
tends to be a press release substituting for legislation.

                              {time}  1345

  There is no bipartisanship. There is none. There is no working 
together. There is none. And that is unfortunate. I think one of the 
messages of this last election for the American people was they want to 
see things happen here. Not just whatever the Republicans want or 
whatever the Democrats want, they want us to see us working together.
  I served here as a staffer during a time when there was collegiality, 
when Republicans and Democrats came together and passed appropriations 
bills and authorization bills and passed major reform bills. That 
doesn't happen anymore.
  On the issue of regulatory reform, I think you can actually get a 
consensus on regulatory reform. There is nobody in this House that 
thinks the regulatory process is perfect. The problem is, when you 
bring a bill to the floor that is so one-sided, that is poorly written, 
that is impractical, we can't support it.
  On the issue of Israel, we could have come to a consensus, I think, 
and spoken with one voice to show our unwavering support for the State 
of Israel. But instead, we have a bill that comes to the floor that is 
politically charged--I think that is very clear, based on the tone of 
some of the speeches here today--but also has factual errors in it.
  The frustration level has grown to the point where some of us in the 
minority have taken to protesting. We had a sit-in in response to the 
fact that we couldn't get legislation to the floor that said if you are 
on a terrorist list, you can't fly, then you can't buy a gun, and a 
bill that called for universal background checks.
  We thought we had a promise to be able to bring some of this to the 
floor. My friends could have voted against it. But we were told, no, 
you don't even have the right to debate these bills.
  I am going to say to my colleagues sincerely that, unless things 
change, you are going to see the discord, the anger, and the 
frustration build on this side of the aisle, and you are going to see 
it build throughout the country.
  There is a reason why people hold Congress in such disdain. It is 
because they see this place not as an institution where we can solve 
problems but as a place where it is all about obstruction or ``my way 
or the highway.''
  This is a lousy way to start the new year. Please vote ``no'' on the 
previous question and vote ``no'' on this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  It is amazing to me some of the stuff that I have just heard, Mr. 
Speaker, just in the last few minutes. And I appreciate my friend 
across the aisle, but the debate that we have been having here is 
amazing. So that is something I want to talk about, but also something 
that came up, just to take a few steps down the road.
  It had been mentioned many times here on the floor today that a 
unanimous vote by the Security Council in some way implies that it was 
right or that it was proper. I am sorry, the groupthink of the United 
Nations Security Council on this issue was wrong.
  The one that was left silent was the beacon of freedom to the world, 
the United States, and instead of engaging, instead of working as we 
have in the past abstained or voted against, there have been times when 
we actually, as my friend said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, worked 
together. When that did happen in the past, there were times in which 
Israel and the U.S. worked together to soften or change, and we had, at 
that point in time, something that--not liked, but something that could 
be lived with. In this case, it was nothing Israel said. This is bad. 
America turned its back.
  Where was the voice? It was silent. Where was the voice? We voted 
absent. That is not what the leader of the free world should do. That 
is not what the leader of the free world should do to his closest ally 
in the Middle East. That is why we are talking about this.
  There are other things we can discuss today. There are other 
discussions on two-state solutions on another case on the settlement, 
but the bottom line here is that it goes deeper than the other issues. 
The deeper part here is that we simply sat silent while the world 
mocked and criticized our strongest ally, Mr. Speaker.
  So don't talk to me about working together. I get it. But where was 
the working together on this? It was absent. A unanimous vote, 
especially of the United Nations Security Council, using that as your 
justification, I think we need to talk.
  But also, Mr. Speaker, when we come to the end, regulatory 
environment, the REINS Act is simply saying: Congress, do what Congress 
is supposed to do. Congress, work as the voice of the American people. 
Work for the voice of helping companies start and create jobs. Work 
with the American people to relegate them forward instead of moving 
backward.
  The REINS Act simply says: let's do our job here. Not the ones who 
are

[[Page 270]]

closed off from input but the folks who are elected to come to this 
place, to come to these hallowed halls and debate what we are talking 
about today: debate the regulatory environment, debate the environment. 
When we do that, then that is what we need to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule 
and the underlying bill.
  I oppose this rule because it makes in order H.R. 26, the Regulations 
from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, which is a radical 
measure that could make it impossible to promulgate safety regulations 
to protect the public.
  I oppose this rule because it would effectively shut down the entire 
U.S. regulatory system, amending in one fell swoop every bedrock 
existing regulatory statute.
  The legislation is clearly designed to stop all regulation dead in 
its tracks--no matter the threat to health, safety or the economy.
  It would neuter the current system's reliance on science, expertise, 
and public participation in developing regulations.
  H.R. 26 would reshape the regulatory system to work as it did in the 
19th Century, before the abuses of the robber barons led Congress to 
create a modern and more efficient system to protect public health and 
safety.
  The REINS Act would require both houses of Congress to approve any 
major rule within a limited period of time in order for it to take 
effect.
  Effectively, this would allow either house of Congress to block rules 
simply through inaction, even when an existing statute required action.
  The legislation would disempower every federal agency, effectively 
rendering their rulemaking activities advisory opinions with no force 
of law.
  Under REINS, even rules to handle emergencies could be in effect for 
only 90 days absent Congressional approval.
  H.R. 26 is so grossly slanted against regulation that it will allow 
lawsuits to proceed against any regulation Congress could actually 
manage to approve.
  And the latest version of the bill delays its effective date for a 
year so that any Trump Administration efforts to repeal existing 
regulations would not get caught up in the REINS Act trap--another 
indication that the REINS Act would be expected to stop any regulatory 
action from moving forward (because repealing regulations must be done 
through regulation, so repeals would in fact trigger REINS.)
  In addition to representing an overwhelming threat to the public, 
H.R. 26 is also bad for business.
  The legislation would require businesses to have to lobby Congress 
for each and every significant regulatory change they wanted--no matter 
whether those were new regulations, changes in regulation or repeal; no 
matter whether the regulatory issues involved disputes between 
different industries; no matter how technical the issues involved.
  H.R. 26 would, in fact, make the regulatory system less predictable 
for industry and would disadvantage any industry that did not have a 
large political presence.
  It is difficult to exaggerate how fundamentally this alarming piece 
of legislation would change American government and how hard it would 
make it to protect the public.
  This legislative effort is the ultimate giveaway to special 
interests.
  Under H.R. 26, any special interest could simply use its political 
clout in one chamber of Congress to sideline such vital public 
protections as limiting the amount of lead in children's products, 
preventing salmonella contamination in eggs, reducing emissions of 
toxic air pollutants or banning predatory banking practices.
  The REINS Act constitutes the ultimate overreach as well, not only 
because of the impact it would have, but because Congress already has 
ample tools to control the regulatory system.
  Congress is already vested with the authority to vote to block a 
specific regulation at any time.
  And regulation is permitted only pursuant to statutes that Congress 
has passed and can amend or repeal.
  Under current law, agencies must keep a record of their interactions 
with industry and other entities interested in the regulatory process 
and provide a clear record of their decision-making (which often must 
be able to hold up in court).
  Because agencies often take years to review the scientific and 
technical evidence relevant to a decision, throwing every final 
decision to Congress would undermine this entire process.
  In addition, courts can review regulations and an elaborate public 
process that can stretch out for years must be followed to issue a 
regulation.
  Instead, under this legislation, Congress would have to make 
relatively rapid decisions, often behind closed doors, and it would not 
be legally held to any standard of technical review.
  Businesses would no longer have an incentive to cooperate with 
agencies and provide arguments and evidence because they could just 
take their chances with the political process, which they would no 
doubt try to influence with campaign contributions.
  Ultimately, decisions on regulations would be determined solely by 
political horse-trading among Members of Congress.
  Agencies issue 50 to 100 major rules a year dealing with everything 
from Medicare reimbursement to railroad safety to environmental 
protection.
  But, under H.R. 26, Congress would have 70 legislative days to 
second-guess each and every decision covered by the Act.
  Because failure to take action would kill any safeguard, Congress 
would be forced to hold hearings in a short time on technical issues--
or worse, forgo hearings and race the 70-day clock with even less 
information and debate.
  This body has already allowed backlog to clog the channels of its 
current docket, and this legislation would require that as many as 100 
additional measures come to the floor.
  This is not an effort to drain the swamp; this is a divisive and 
manipulative tactic employed to clog the drain.
  Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, this merry-go-round 
legislative scheme and the irresponsibility of the House majority in 
wasting time trying to shut down the entire regulatory system (because 
it cannot win through time-honored, Constitutional legislative 
processes) entirely disregard the administrative public support efforts 
in place to protect food safety, air and water quality and to limit the 
manipulation of our economic system by special interests.
  The REINS Act is tantamount to a coup--a right-wing takeover to block 
future agency actions regardless of public desires.
  The exceptional Americans we serve deserve a Congress that does its 
job and keeps our time-honored institutions functioning.
  For these reasons and more, I oppose this rule and the underlying 
bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 22 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
     the House shall proceed to the consideration, without 
     intervention of any point of order, in the House of the 
     resolution (H. Res. 23) expressing the sense of the House of 
     Representatives and reaffirming long-standing United States 
     policy in support of a negotiated two-state solution to the 
     Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 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 
     Foreign Affairs.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of House Resolution 23.

        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

[[Page 271]]

     vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting 
     the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or 
     policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they 
     have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual 
     on the Legislative Process in the United States House of 
     Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the 
     Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own 
     manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the 
     rule because the majority Member controlling the time will 
     not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same 
     result may be achieved by voting down the previous question 
     on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question 
     is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led 
     the opposition to ordering the previous question. That 
     Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an 
     amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of 
     amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235, 
nays 188, not voting 10, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 9]

                               YEAS--235

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Beutler
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--188

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Becerra
     Collins (NY)
     Davis, Danny
     Gallego
     Lawson (FL)
     Mulvaney
     Pompeo
     Price, Tom (GA)
     Rush
     Zinke

                              {time}  1412

  Messrs. NADLER and AL GREEN of Texas changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. LAWSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 9.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. McCARTHY was allowed to speak out of 
order.)


                         Recognizing Tim Berry

  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, when we as Members of Congress are first 
elected, before we are sworn in, before we introduce our first bit of 
legislation, the first thing we do is begin to hire, to form a team, 
and much of the success that happens on this floor is a lot of work 
that is done behind the scenes by our staff. They do a tremendous job 
for this country in the public service they provide.
  I personally count myself blessed to have had Tim Berry as my chief 
of staff for the whole time I have been in leadership. Today is his 
last day on our floor. Tim has had 18 years of service in this 
institution. He has been in other leadership offices. He went into the 
private sector, but when I got elected majority whip, I asked him if he 
was willing to come back.

[[Page 272]]

  Tim has always demonstrated political wisdom, personal resolve, 
dedication, but, most importantly, distinct moral clarity.
  He has been here in some of the most difficult times in this 
institution. He was in the office when people were actually shot when 
an intruder came and took lives in this institution. He has worked on 
legislation, he has worked on friendships, and he has worked across the 
aisle. But if there were one thing I would define this man as, it is a 
family man.
  Today, we are lucky to have his wife, Lisa, and daughter, Maeve, in 
the gallery with us. And to his other children, Ella and Chris, I want 
to thank you for your sacrifice on loaning your father. For every 
dinner he has missed, or every phone call he had to take, or maybe that 
one or two lacrosse games he couldn't coach, I want to thank you.
  But to Tim, I want to thank you for your dedication, I want to thank 
you for your friendship, and I want to wish you the very best on behalf 
of a very grateful nation and institution. Thank you.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCARTHY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, my colleague, 
the minority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the majority leader, Mr. 
McCarthy, for yielding.
  I rise to thank and to pay tribute to Tim Berry.
  Mr. Speaker, the American public sees us so often when we are 
confronting one another--disagreeing strenuously sometimes and 
disagreeing sometimes disagreeably. What they don't see is the staff 
working with staffs across the aisle in a constructive effort to reach 
consensus and to move democracy forward. What they don't see is the 
collegiality that is engendered through the years between staff who 
have the responsibility of ensuring not only that their Members have 
full knowledge of what is being considered and their advice and 
counsel, but also of assuring that there is positive communication 
across the aisle even when we disagree.
  Tim Berry has been one of the most adept, most cordial, most 
positive, and most effective staffers in effecting that end. We Members 
sometimes mask how effective our staffs are. I am sure they will lament 
that from time to time.
  Tim Berry, I want you to know--we are very proud--is from Silver 
Spring, Maryland. He grew up in Silver Spring and grew up in our State. 
Tim Berry is a proud son of our State. Yes, he is a Republican; yes, he 
has been on staff on the other side of the aisle; but he is an American 
first, who has cared about his country, who has cared about this 
institution, and who has cared about showing respect and concern for 
staffs on both sides of the aisle.
  I have had a number of chiefs of staff, one of whom is Cory 
Alexander, now the vice president of UnitedHealth. Cory Alexander and 
Tim are good friends. They worked together very constructively when Tim 
was with Tom DeLay. Mr. McCarthy is in that office, and I had the 
privilege of using that office for 4 years. There was never a time when 
we walked down that hallway that we didn't think of Detective Gibson 
losing his life and Officer Chestnut losing his life outside that door. 
Tim Berry was there to serve. Tim Berry served, notwithstanding the 
dangers that were self-evident.
  Lisa is in the gallery and his children who have been mentioned by 
Leader McCarthy. Young people, you can be extraordinarily proud of your 
dad. I know, Lisa, you are as well. He has made this institution a 
better institution. He has made the relationship between the parties 
more positive in times when it was greatly strained.
  Tim, thank you. Thank you for your service to the Congress, thank you 
for your service to the country, and thank you for your service to each 
and every one of us. God bless you and Godspeed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). Without objection, 5-minute 
voting will continue.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. 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 231, 
noes 187, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 10]

                               AYES--231

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Beutler
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--187

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone

[[Page 273]]


     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Becerra
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Collins (NY)
     Gallego
     Meeks
     Mulvaney
     Pompeo
     Price, Tom (GA)
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rush
     Velazquez
     Walberg
     Zinke

                              {time}  1430

  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.

                          ____________________