[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 590-597]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 78, SEC REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY 
ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 238, COMMODITY END-USER RELIEF 
                      ACT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 40 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 40

       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. 78) to improve the consideration by the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission of the costs and benefits 
     of its regulations and orders. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Financial Services 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 part A of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be

[[Page 591]]

     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.  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. 
     238) to reauthorize the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 
     to better protect futures customers, to provide end-users 
     with market certainty, to make basic reforms to ensure 
     transparency and accountability at the Commission, to help 
     farmers, ranchers, and end-users manage risks, to help keep 
     consumer costs low, and for other purposes. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the 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. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-2. That 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment 
     may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may 
     be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 
     be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time 
     specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, 
     and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All 
     points of order against such amendments are waived. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     January 16, 2017, through January 20, 2017--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 4.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 3 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 5.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of January 13, 2017, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though 
     under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall 
     consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the 
     designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this 
     section.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bost). The gentleman from Washington is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), my 
good friend, 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. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 40, providing for the consideration 
of two important pieces of legislation: H.R. 238, the Commodity End-
User Relief Act, and H.R. 78, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act.
  The rule provides for the consideration of these measures under a 
structured rule and makes in order any amendment submitted to the House 
Rules Committee, including all five Democratic amendments to H.R. 78, 
as well as all eight amendments submitted for H.R. 238, allowing for a 
balanced debate on these very substantial issues.
  H.R. 238 is essential to the smooth functioning of the American 
economy and is long overdue for enactment into law. This important 
legislation reauthorizes until 2021 the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission, also known as the CFTC, which had its statutory authority 
lapse in 2013. The House passed the Commodity End-User Relief Act with 
bipartisan support in the 114th Congress, and a similar bill was also 
adopted in the 113th Congress, establishing a strong record of 
bipartisan support for this measure. Unfortunately, in both instances, 
the Senate failed to take up the legislation before the end of its 
respective Congress, which is why it is imperative that we pass this 
bill through both Chambers and send it to the President's desk.
  After the financial crisis of 2008, practically everyone agreed that 
changes needed to be made to our financial services sector in order to 
protect families, farmers, small businesses, and our economy, as well 
as to prevent another crisis in the future. Like many of my colleagues, 
I have concerns with some of the reforms that were instituted in 
response to the crisis because they have put overly burdensome 
restrictions and regulations on our economy and our business 
communities. But like every major, comprehensive law, there are always 
unintended consequences that need to be addressed, and H.R. 238 does 
exactly that.
  For example, the authors of Dodd-Frank argued the law's main purpose 
was to reduce systemic risk to our economy. However, I don't think 
anyone would argue that farmers who are simply trying to lock in a good 
price for their corn or their wheat are a systemic risk to the economy. 
Similarly, restaurant chains looking to make sure they have enough 
beef, enough pork, or enough potatoes to sell to their customers don't 
pose a systemic risk, just as utility companies seeking to ensure that 
they have adequate power supplies to meet the needs and demands of 
their ratepayers did not cause the financial crisis. Unfortunately, the 
current law imposes rules that treat all of these entities as major 
risks to our economy, and it imposes overly burdensome capital and 
paperwork requirements on them.
  Mr. Speaker, critics may claim that this bill undermines consumer 
protections. However, this could not be further from the truth.
  Title I of the legislation puts in place greater consumer 
protections, like requiring brokerage firms to notify investors before 
moving funds from one account to another in order to prevent abuses 
like those that occurred at MF Global prior to its bankruptcy.
  Title II makes reforms to the CFTC and strengthens the cost-benefit 
analysis the Commission must perform when considering the impacts of 
its rules. Opponents have claimed that requiring cost-benefit analyses 
will open up the CFTC to lawsuits. However, H.R. 238 merely gives the 
CFTC a standard for writing good rules the first time, which will be a 
benefit for all of us.
  Title III provides relief to the farmers, the restaurants, the 
manufacturers, the utilities, and other entities which rely on a steady 
supply of commodities and inherently want to avoid risk but have been 
caught up in the unintended consequences of the Dodd-Frank reforms. 
These users have a genuine need to use markets to hedge against bad 
weather, natural disasters, inflation, price shocks, and other 
unforeseen circumstances that could jeopardize their ability to serve 
their customers.
  The rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 78, the SEC 
Regulatory Accountability Act. This legislation replaces guidance 
adopted by the SEC in 2012 that currently governs the use of economic 
analysis in SEC rulemakings and requires the SEC to identify and assess 
the significance of problems prior to regulating. It directs the agency 
to conduct a review of existing regulations within 1 year of 
enactment--

[[Page 592]]

and then every 5 years thereafter--to determine the sufficiency, the 
effectiveness, and the burdens associated with their implementation. 
Further, H.R. 78 instructs the SEC's Chief Economist to conduct a cost-
benefit analysis on regulations the agency is promulgating as well as 
to provide an explanation describing the SEC's decision-making process, 
including the implications of not taking the regulatory action.
  Economic analysis is the cornerstone of prudent rulemaking and 
entails evaluating the qualitative and quantitative costs and benefits 
of proposed regulations as well as potential alternatives in order to 
determine the correct action an agency should take. We must ensure 
Federal regulators are thoroughly assessing both the need for the 
regulation and adequately evaluating its potential consequences--
intended as well as unintended--to prevent small businesses and job 
creators from being unnecessarily burdened by onerous Federal 
regulations.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good, straightforward rule, allowing for the 
consideration of two bills that will hold Federal agencies and their 
rulemaking processes accountable to the American people. Voters sent a 
clear message in November that they want a Federal Government that is 
smaller, less intrusive, and more discerning in its regulatory actions. 
House Republicans created our A Better Way agenda by listening to 
Americans about the ideas for our Nation, and the new, unified 
Republican government will continue our work to change the status quo 
and provide real progress for all Americans. The adoption of this rule 
and the passage of the underlying bills is yet another opportunity to 
show that we heard this message loud and clear and that we will 
reinforce our commitment to restoring the people's voice in our Federal 
Government.
  I am proud to support the rule providing for the consideration of 
these measures, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman for the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying 
bills.
  I start by, again, mentioning the fact that we have before us, under 
this rule, H.R. 238, the Commodity End-User Relief Act, and H.R. 78, 
the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act. I will talk about them in a 
minute.
  There are 56 Members of this body who are new Members and who had no 
chance to participate in marking up these bills in their committees of 
jurisdiction. Sure, I am back and Mr. Newhouse is back, but 56 people 
who were in that Congress in December are not here now, and there are 
56 new people.
  Again, a regular order process would allow these bills to go through 
committee and have ideas and the participation from Democrats and 
Republicans, who represent, collectively, tens of millions of people in 
this country, in improving these bills. We did not allow it. These 
bills just appeared fait accompli in the Rules Committee yesterday. 
Here we are on the floor. None of the new Members had a chance in their 
committees to offer them.

                              {time}  1245

  In fact, I am not sure where the Republicans are in their process, 
but Democrats are still finalizing our committee assignments. We have 
some of them, and the rest will be completed shortly.
  For Congress to work well, we need to have regular order. And for 
regular order to work, we need to make sure that the 56 new Members who 
represent tens of millions of people are not disenfranchised in this 
process.
  Now, getting to the bills. H.R. 238, the Commodities End-User Relief 
Act, has been brought to the floor even before the Agriculture 
Committee convened or held its organizing meeting. It reauthorizes the 
Commodities Futures Trading Commission through 2021. It makes a lot of 
changes to internal changes and modifies a number of provisions that 
were designed to prevent financial meltdowns.
  Additionally, H.R. 238 includes language on issues that the 
Commodities Futures Trading Commission has already addressed through 
its own efforts. For example, the Commodities Future Trading Commission 
has acted on 16 of 22 provisions in titles I and III. Particularly, 
many of us are concerned by the cross-border language in the bill, 
which would undercut efforts already underway by the Commission to 
negotiate an international system of safe and robust derivative rules.
  H.R. 238 would actually require the Commodities Futures Trading 
Commission to create a rule that would automatically allow U.S. banks 
and foreign banks conducting business in the U.S. to do so under the 
rules imposed by foreign jurisdictions, which can be substantially 
different than those of our own, removing the confidence in the 
marketplace that is needed for a commodity market to work.
  Finally, as you know, Congress passed a number of reforms to enable 
regulators to respond quickly to changing markets. The provisions in 
title II would weaken the CFTC's ability to respond in a timely and 
effective manner.
  The financial services industry continues to innovate. It is 
important that regulators keep pace and prevent systemic risks, prevent 
meltdowns, prevent bailouts. This bill would make it harder to do that.
  An example of how the Commission is engaged with and talking about 
innovation is how to fully embrace emerging technologies like 
blockchain and decentralized distribution ledgers. They are doing that 
because many financial firms are focusing on how to incorporate this 
technology into their business models. Therefore, it is imperative the 
Commission is given the ability to stay involved and understand the 
implications of new technology and innovations and is not hamstrung by 
this overly prescriptive law.
  Now, the Commission does need reauthorization, and I would love the 
opportunity to work with my colleagues on the other side to do so. It 
should be in a thoughtful, bipartisan manner that gives the agency the 
ability it needs to effectively look at incredibly complicated 
financial transactions, make sure that consumers and users of 
commodities that hedge their risks are not abused in the process. We do 
not want to hamstring the agency by unnecessary and counterproductive 
requirements as this bill does.
  The other bill, H.R. 78, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act, also 
was brought forward before the Financial Services Committee got 
organized. This bill was not even considered by the House last 
Congress, and it stalled in the Financial Services Committee. So you 
actually have a bill that didn't even clear committee last Congress. I 
was complaining about how the 56 Members that are new to this body 
didn't have a chance to put their imprint on the first bill. The second 
bill didn't even make it through the Financial Services Committee and 
didn't even pass the House floor last session. Yet, here it is without 
the appropriate committee consideration, depriving new Members 
representing tens of millions of Americans--Democratic and Republican--
the ability to improve this bill.
  Under the guise of regulation changes, H.R. 78 would actually require 
the SEC to conduct enhanced cost-benefit analysis in order to ensure 
that benefits of their regulation justify the cost. In effect, the bill 
directs the SEC to look at things like market liquidity and small 
businesses, which, of course, it already does as part of its economic 
analysis. So, again, it is a bill that would bury the SEC in regulatory 
paperwork.
  H.R. 78's cost-benefit analysis is weighted toward helping large 
financial institutions save money. I support reducing costs for 
financial institutions. Who wouldn't? But that is not the primary drive 
of our regulatory structure. We should put consumers and our systemic 
risks first and foremost and, of course, where we can reduce the 
unnecessary costs for our financial institutions in the hope that

[[Page 593]]

those would be passed along to those they serve.
  I, therefore, oppose both of these bills. I oppose the rule that 
limits the opportunity for Members to offer amendments to these two 
pieces of legislation. I oppose this process that disenfranchises our 
new Members.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, in fact, if I could read from a letter I received this 
morning from over two dozen agricultural groups. In one sentence, it 
says: ``Thank you in advance for your support of this bill that is so 
important to U.S. farmers, ranchers, hedgers and futures customers.'' 
It is signed, like I said, by over two dozen organizations.
  I include in the Record the letter I received this morning, I think, 
as did my colleague, Representative Polis, from over two dozen 
agricultural groups and associations located throughout the country in 
unanimous support of H.R. 238.

                                                 January 11, 2017.
       Dear Member of the House of Representatives: The 
     undersigned organizations represent a very broad cross-
     section of U.S. production agriculture and agribusiness. We 
     urge you to cast an affirmative vote on H.R. 238, the 
     ``Commodity End-User Relief Act,'' when it moves to the floor 
     for consideration.
       This legislation contains a number of important provisions 
     for agricultural and agribusiness hedgers who use futures and 
     swaps to manage their business and production risks. Some, 
     but certainly not all, of the bill's important provisions 
     include:
       Sections 101-103--Codify important customer protections to 
     help prevent another MF Global situation.
       Section 104--Provides a permanent solution to the residual 
     interest problem that would have put more customer funds at 
     risk--and potentially driven farmers, ranchers and small 
     hedgers out of futures markets--by forcing pre-margining of 
     their hedge accounts.
       Section 306--Relief from burdensome and technologically 
     infeasible recordkeeping requirements in commodity markets.
       Section 308--Requires the CFTC to conduct a study and issue 
     a rule before reducing the de minimis threshold for swap 
     dealer registration in order to make sure that doing so would 
     not harm market liquidity and end-user access to markets.
       Section 311--Confirms the intent of Dodd-Frank that 
     anticipatory hedging is considered bona fide hedging 
     activity.
       Thank you in advance for your support of this bill that is 
     so important to U.S. farmers, ranchers, hedgers and futures 
     customers.
           Sincerely,
       American Cotton Shippers Association, American Farm Bureau 
     Federation, American Feed Industry Association, American 
     Soybean Association, Grain and Feed Association of Illinois, 
     Kansas Grain and Feed Association, Michigan Agri-Business 
     Association, Michigan Bean Shippers, National Association of 
     Wheat Growers, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, 
     National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council.
       National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Grain and 
     Feed Association, National Milk Producers Federation, 
     National Pork Producers Council, National Sorghum Producers, 
     Nebraska Grain and Feed Association, North American Millers 
     Association, Northeast Agribusiness and Feed Alliance, Ohio 
     AgriBusiness Association, South Dakota Grain and Feed 
     Association, USA Rice, Wisconsin Agri-Business Association.

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, also, in response to just one of the 
points that my colleague brought up, in the first 2 weeks of this 115th 
Congress, the Speaker, as well as the chairman of the Rules Committee, 
Representative Sessions, has provided opportunity for all Members to 
appear before the Rules Committee, has invited all Members to submit 
amendments. In fact, I can gladly say and happily say that every 
amendment submitted on these two bills has been accepted, if they were 
proven to be germane.
  In fact, one of the arguments made by my good friend is that the 
freshmen have not had an opportunity to weigh in on these two pieces of 
legislation. Actually, the young freshman from Maryland had an 
amendment brought forward, and it was accepted to bring for 
consideration on the floor. So I think the arguments fall hollow that 
Members have not had an opportunity to be heard.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Conaway), the good chairman of the Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule to 
provide consideration of H.R. 238, the Commodity End-User Relief Act.
  I want to start by thanking Mr. Newhouse, Chairman Sessions, and the 
entire Rules Committee for the time and work that they spent preparing 
this rule. I appreciate the committee's time, attention, and interest 
in the work of the Agriculture Committee.
  I am especially gratified by their support of my push to authorize 
all of the unauthorized agencies and programs under our committee's 
jurisdiction. Last Congress, we came very close, but we fell one agency 
short. The Commodities Future Trading Commission ended the year as it 
began it, unauthorized.
  The Commission, in fact, has not been reauthorized since October 
2013. And since that time, the House of Representatives have voted 
twice to fix that problem. The most recent effort was in June of 2015. 
Tomorrow, if we pass H.R. 238, will be the third time this House has 
done its work on this oversight business. Under this rule, we have the 
opportunity to pick up where we left off and resume the House's debate 
on the Commodity End-User Relief Act.
  The text of H.R. 238 is identical to the legislation passed by this 
House last Congress, except for four changes:
  First, we included a specific annual spending authorization level, 
and it is set at the same level as last year's appropriations. This 
ensures compliance with the majority leader's floor protocols on both 
specific authorization levels and discretionary CutGo.
  Next, two sections were removed because they were already signed into 
law.
  Finally, we removed a section that required the Commission to report 
to Congress on the status of a pending Board of Trade registration 
application. That application has been approved, so there is no longer 
a reason for the Commission to comply with that language.
  Other than those four changes, the text of H.R. 238 includes every 
word passed by this House last Congress, including amendments offered 
by Mr. Gallego to encourage diversity in the Office of the Chief 
Economist, as well as Mr. Takai to identify information security 
vulnerabilities.
  This bill does not just reauthorize the CFTC. It also makes important 
process reforms and targeted changes to help Main Street businesses 
continue to access the risk management tools that they need to serve 
their customers.
  Over the past 4\1/2\ years, the House Committee on Agriculture has 
held almost two dozen hearings examining the Commission and 
investigating the impacts that the Dodd-Frank Act has had on 
derivatives markets. What we have found is that some of the rules have 
had unintended consequences for farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and 
other businesses who use these markets to protect themselves from 
uncertainty.
  Our witnesses, many of whom were market participants struggling to 
comply with burdensome rules and ambiguous portions of underlying 
statute, were consistent in their call for relief. To address their 
concerns, H.R. 238 makes reforms that fall into three broad categories: 
customer protections, commission reforms, and end-user relief.
  The Commodity End-User Relief Act does not roll back any of the key 
reforms made under Dodd-Frank. What it does, however, is allow Congress 
to keep its promise to Main Street America: Main Street did not cause 
the financial crisis, so Main Street should not have to pay for it. 
They shouldn't have to pay for it with new fees. They shouldn't have to 
pay for it in new compliance obligations. They shouldn't have to pay 
for it in higher transactions costs. And they shouldn't have to pay for 
it in lost opportunities to manage their business risks.
  I would like to close by thanking Chairman Austin Scott and Ranking 
Member David Scott for doing much of the heavy lifting on the 
committee's issues. The two of them got deep into the weeds of 
financial reform.
  I would also like to thank Mr. Lucas, who is a sponsor emeritus of 
this bill. We have been working on this issue since he was chairman, 
and much of

[[Page 594]]

the bipartisan work he did remains in this bill.
  I urge adoption of this rule and support for all the amendments that 
were made in order.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  When we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to 
the rule to bring up legislation that would require the President and 
Vice President of the United States, their spouses and dependent 
children to disclose and divest any personal financial holdings that 
could create a conflict of interest by placing them in a blind trust. 
This has been standard for previous Presidents, and this legislation 
ensures that that precedent continues.
  In today's news conference moments ago, President-elect Trump said 
that he did not plan to follow with precedent and place his assets in a 
blind trust and would continue his direct ownership interest in them. 
President-elect Trump has refused to release his tax returns, refused 
to resolve conflicts of interest related to his business dealings. The 
American people expect the President to do what is best for the country 
and not what is best for his business or his pocket.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 5 minutes to 
the distinguished gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the lead 
sponsor of the bill that I am proud to cosponsor.
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up 
the Presidential Conflicts of Interest Act.
  Mr. Speaker, American families are worried. Over the last month, I 
have been flooded with messages from my constituents who are anxious 
about the direction of our country.
  Never before has our country been forced to ask its incoming 
President if he is motivated by service to his country or if he is 
motivated by personal enrichment. Never before have we had a President-
elect who will act as both landlord and tenant of a publicly owned 
property being used for private profit. Never before have we had the 
same people who are running a President's businesses also act as 
official advisers and agents. Never has a President-elect owed millions 
of dollars of debt to foreign banks.
  The next administration will shape how our tax dollars are spent, who 
the Federal Government does business with, and the integrity of 
America's standing in the global economy.
  Every President in modern history has taken voluntary steps to ensure 
his financial interests do not conflict with the needs of the American 
people. Yet, the current President-elect refuses to place his assets 
and his businesses in a blind trust.
  The American people are left wondering whether their President-elect 
will work in their best interest or to line his own pockets.
  Mr. Speaker, this is unprecedented. There should be no question about 
whether the administration will put the needs of Americans first. There 
is nothing partisan about transparency and accountability that comes 
with being the leader of the free world. That is why we should all 
support the Presidential Conflicts of Interest Act.
  This bill strengthens transparency in the Oval Office and guarantees 
that the needs of the American people will never compete with or be 
beholden to a President's financial interests. This bill ensures that 
the President and Vice President's assets are placed in a certified 
blind trust.

                              {time}  1300

  The bill also requires Presidential appointees to recuse themselves 
from matters involving the President's financial conflicts of interest. 
Every President in recent history, from President Johnson to President 
Obama, has voluntarily used some form of blind trust or placed their 
assets in an investment vehicle over which they had no control. Our 
bill simply aligns the President-elect and future Presidents with this 
long-held practice.
  The American people are counting on our leadership. Every Democrat 
and every Republican should want to eliminate uncertainty and promote 
transparency and accountability in the executive branch. I ask my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring this 
urgently needed legislation to the floor.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, while I applaud the optimism and 
enthusiasm of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) about defeating 
the previous question, getting back to the debate on the rule, I have 
no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself 
the balance of my time.
  I just want to emphasize how important it is that we defeat the 
previous question. There are so many questions that have been raised. 
Not only is it in keeping with longstanding precedent for the President 
to divest and place their assets in a blind trust, but it is more 
important than ever with this President who has a complex web of 
assets, nationally and internationally, which are rife with conflicts 
of interest for the incoming administration.
  I truly hope we can act in a bipartisan way to defeat the previous 
question and bring forward Ms. Clark's simple, straightforward bill. It 
affects future Presidents, Republican and Democratic, and it is a very 
simple, commonsense piece of legislation simply saying that they will 
divest and place their assets in a blind trust, something that is 
important for both the appearance of propriety as well as for the sake 
of propriety.
  And yet instead of focusing on legislation to investigate foreign 
powers undermining our recent election, instead of focusing on 
preventing conflicts of interest for the incoming administration, 
instead of focusing on legislation that would create jobs, reduce our 
deficit, or improve on health care, instead we have partisan 
legislation that hasn't gone through regular order. It has left 56 new 
Members representing tens of millions of Americans on the sideline.
  The House passed a lot of legislation last Congress. That does not 
mean that we should bring every bill directly to the floor and skip the 
committee process, because there are 56 new Members who should also 
have a chance to put their imprint on legislation. The way the majority 
is bringing bills to the floor, it ignores the concerns of the American 
public; it ignores pressing issues related to the incoming President.
  We have this window of time under the outgoing President to send a 
bill to his desk to require disclosure and divestment from the new 
President, but that window is rapidly closing. We will only have 
President Obama in the White House for another week, so time is running 
short.
  If we act now and defeat the previous question, hopefully the Senate 
will act within a few days, and we can get the bill to President Obama. 
But the timeline is very, very short to do this. I do not expect that 
Mr. Trump would sign a bill that puts additional requirements on 
himself, although he would perhaps change that bill to affect future 
Presidents because it needs to be done. It is kind of shocking that we 
relied on precedents rather than law in this area.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question 
so I can bring forward Ms. Clark's bill as my amendment. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on the underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the discussion over the past few 
minutes. I believe that this rule and the underlying bills are strong 
measures that are important to the future of our country.
  This rule provides for ample debate on the floor, the opportunity to 
consider and vote on both H.R. 238 and

[[Page 595]]

H.R. 78, as well as every amendment that was submitted to the House 
Rules Committee, which reflects the balanced, open, and deliberative 
process afforded by this rule.
  H.R. 238 is a solid, substantial measure that will address several 
critical issues that the CFTC and end user are facing, while also 
addressing the CFTC's lapsed reauthorization with reauthorizing the 
Commission through 2021. While some opponents have called for an open 
rule, this structured rule makes all eight submitted amendments in 
order.
  Mr. Speaker, no one wants to see complete deregulation of our 
financial services industries and our commodities and derivatives 
markets. However, it is critical that the regulations put in place are 
appropriate for our economy and our users. These rules have to provide 
safeguards and prevent systemic risk but should not hinder our entire 
economy with one-size-fits-all regulations.
  As we have discussed today, the current rules place enormous 
compliance and financial burdens on small businesses, on farmers and 
ranchers, utilities, and manufacturers. They take these small, risk-
averse entities and place them under the same regulatory scheme as 
large financial institutions and hedge funds. H.R. 238 will 
differentiate and exempt the end users who are not a cause of systemic 
risk--as these entities inherently want to avoid risk--and, thus, 
shouldn't be subject to the same rules and requirements as financial 
and investment firms that are less risk averse in nature.
  The Commodity End-User Relief Act would make much-needed reforms at 
the CFTC to strengthen their rulemaking process and add commonsense 
consumer protections so these regulations are not a continual burden on 
our Nation's farmers and small businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 78 
under a structured rule and makes all five Democratic amendments in 
order. This legislation takes important steps to engrain a stronger 
commitment to economic analysis at the SEC, which will facilitate the 
promulgation of reasonable rules that do not unduly burden registered 
companies or negatively impact job creation. The measure will increase 
transparency and oversight, while facilitating additional analysis and 
reviews of existing regulations, which should be something that all 
Members of this body can support.
  As elected Representatives, I believe we must ensure our regulatory 
framework is not politicized and that Federal regulators are thoroughly 
assessing both the need for the regulation as well as adequately 
evaluating its potential consequences. This bill takes important steps 
towards achieving all of these goals.
  It is important to remember that the financial crisis was not caused 
by the farmer who grows the food you eat for dinner, or by the utility 
you buy electricity from, or by the people who provide the wood in your 
desk or the metal used in your car. I don't know of any reason why we 
should continue to treat them as if they were responsible, which is 
what the current law does and is what H.R. 238 seeks to correct.
  Further, better informing the American people of the true impact of 
major regulations does nothing to diminish the ability of regulators to 
adequately address illegal or inappropriate activities but, rather, 
increases transparency and the efficacy of Federal rules, which is why 
passage of H.R. 78 is so critical both to our constituents and to our 
economy.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a strong rule that provides for open and fair 
consideration of these vital pieces of legislation as well as every 
amendment that was submitted to the House Rules Committee. I am proud 
to speak in favor of this rule, and I urge all of my colleagues to 
support House Resolution 40 and both of the underlying bills.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

            An Amendment to H. Res. 40 Offered by Mr. Polls

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     371) to address financial conflicts of interest of the 
     President and Vice President. 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. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and 
     reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then 
     on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately 
     after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of 
     rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 371.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. 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. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

[[Page 596]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on agreeing to the resolution, if ordered; 
and suspending the rules and passing H.R. 39.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 168, not voting 34, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 32]

                               YEAS--232

     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)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     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
     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
     Jones
     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)
     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
     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--168

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     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
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Levin
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     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
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--34

     Bass
     Becerra
     Bishop (GA)
     Brown (MD)
     Butterfield
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Curbelo (FL)
     Evans
     Fudge
     Green, Al
     Gutierrez
     Harris
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kelly (IL)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     McCollum
     Moore
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Nadler
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Pompeo
     Price, Tom (GA)
     Richmond
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Shuster
     Watson Coleman
     Zinke

                              {time}  1332

  Mr. CONYERS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. STIVERS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:

  Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had 
I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 32.
  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. POLIS. 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 233, 
noes 170, not voting 31, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 33]

                               AYES--233

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     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
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     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)
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     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
     Jones
     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
     Sinema
     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

[[Page 597]]


     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--170

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     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
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Levin
     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
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     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
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--31

     Bass
     Becerra
     Bishop (GA)
     Brown (MD)
     Butterfield
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cole
     Evans
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Green, Al
     Harris
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kelly (IL)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Moore
     Mulvaney
     Nadler
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Pompeo
     Price, Tom (GA)
     Richmond
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Watson Coleman
     Zinke


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1339

  Mr. CUMMINGS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  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.

                          ____________________