[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 5999-6007]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1695, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS 
                SELECTION AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 275 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 275

       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. 1695) to amend title 17, United States Code, 
     to provide additional responsibilities for the Register of 
     Copyrights, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a

[[Page 6000]]

     substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now 
     printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-13. 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 the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  House Resolution 254 is laid on the table.

  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 Colorado (Mr. 
Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous materials on House Resolution 275, 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 today to bring 
forward this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides 
for consideration of H.R. 1695, the Register of Copyrights Selection 
and Accountability Act of 2017.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the 
chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. The rule also 
provides for a motion to recommit and makes in order amendments by 
Representatives Deutch and Chu.
  Yesterday, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from 
Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Ranking Member John 
Conyers. Their testimony reflected the strong bipartisan support for 
this legislation and the work both Members have invested in moving it 
forward.
  I personally thank Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and 
the Judiciary Committee staff on both the majority and minority side 
for their work on this legislation.
  As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I had the opportunity to 
participate in the committee markup where we debated numerous 
amendments and enjoyed a thorough discussion of this bill. The 
Judiciary Committee ultimately adopted an amendment by my colleague 
from Texas, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, to strengthen the bill. H.R. 
1695 passed the Judiciary Committee in a show of overwhelming 
bipartisan support by a vote of 27-1.
  The Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act is 
supported by numerous outside groups, including the American 
Conservative Union, SAG-AFTRA, the AFL-CIO, the Council for Citizens 
Against Government Waste, CreativeFuture, the Motion Picture 
Association of America, the Gospel Music Association, the American 
Chemical Society, the Church Music Publishers Association, Oracle, and 
many, many others. These groups represent only a sampling of the broad 
support behind this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, as you can tell, H.R. 1695 has brought together many 
groups of people who don't traditionally have similar interests. From 
creators to labor organizations to conservative groups, the diversity 
of support behind this legislation speaks to its significance in the 
copyright industry and to our economy as a whole.
  H.R. 1695 also enjoys the public support of our two former Registers 
of Copyright, individuals who filled the very position this bill seeks 
to address. Former Registers Marybeth Peters and Ralph Oman have both 
made clear their belief in the importance of an ``independent copyright 
advice straight and true from the expert agency'' to Congress.
  These former Registers correctly point out that this bill addresses a 
``structural, not personal or political'' issue between the Library of 
Congress and the Copyright Office. Despite what some may say, this is 
what the bill simply does.
  H.R. 1695 is a necessary first step toward any larger efforts toward 
modernizing the Copyright Office. It helps ensure that the Register can 
implement policy and advise Congress effectively, and this legislation 
will ultimately help strengthen our copyright system. This is 
particularly relevant today, as today is World Intellectual Property 
Day.
  As I discussed earlier today in this Chamber, the importance of 
strong IP protections, including a strong copyright system, is clearer 
than ever. In fact, the copyright system in our country is so critical 
that our Nation's Founders sought to recognize it in the Constitution. 
Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the 
power ``to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing 
for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their 
respective writings and discoveries.''
  While robust intellectual property protections have always been a 
foundational principle of our Nation, today such protections are also a 
major economic driver creating and fueling the American Dream. In fact, 
core copyright industries in the United States are now responsible for 
$1.2 trillion in GDP, representing nearly 7 percent of our economy and 
employing more than 5.5 million people. In my home State of Georgia 
alone, more than 19,000 copyrights are registered annually to State 
residents.
  Yet the head of the Copyright Office, which oversees such a massive 
sector of our economy, is unilaterally selected by the Librarian of 
Congress. This is the case, despite the fact that the Copyright Office 
is statutorily designed as Congress' adviser and the massive role that 
copyright plays in our economy and our society.
  I want to be clear. I think the role of the Library is a critical 
one, and the Librarian performs many important duties. Historically, 
however, the Librarian has not been an expert in copyright and isn't 
expected to be, Mr. Speaker.
  Does it make sense, then, to make the Librarian--any Librarian--to be 
solely responsible for the selection of the person responsible for 
overseeing the Nation's copyright policy? I don't think it does. In 
fact, the current selection is more an accident of history than an 
example of carefully conceived policy.
  By way of historical background, in 1870, the Library of Congress 
believed it would make sense for copyrighted works to be placed in the 
Library as a means to grow the collection. While this made sense at 
that point in history and while the collections are still an important 
function of the Library, this provision neither requires nor justifies 
the role of the Register of Copyrights to be subordinate to the 
Librarian.
  Today, with the major role that the Copyright Office plays in our 
culture and our economy, we can no longer justify the head of the 
Copyright Office--and Congress' designated expert adviser--being hired 
under the umbrella of the Library of Congress. Currently, the Register 
is hired according to the same unilateral process as much more

[[Page 6001]]

junior positions are filled. Under today's system, the Register can 
serve for an unlimited duration without review or removal, despite the 
importance of this position.
  And finally, the Register is not Presidentially appointed, and there 
have been questions in the courts regarding the authority of the 
Copyright Office to conduct rulemaking.
  We need a copyright system for the 21st century. We need a system 
that will take us into the future by protecting and promoting 
innovation. Copyright is the foundation of innovation, and innovation 
is the force that drives our economy. A strong copyright system allows 
the millions of kids and young adults throughout our 50 States to make 
their dreams a reality, to build a career out of what they produce in 
their minds and imaginations. Today's rule provides for an underlying 
bill that will help ensure that our copyright system is equipped to 
rise to the challenges of the future and to support Americans as they 
strive to make their hopes, dreams, and ambitions into reality.
  The underlying bill promotes American innovation by recognizing the 
importance of the Register of Copyrights position. This bill would 
create a selection committee composed by bipartisan, bicameral 
congressional leadership and the Librarian of Congress to recommend 
candidates to the President for nomination. The bill would establish a 
Senate confirmation process for the position and establish a 10-year 
term for the Register of Copyrights position.
  This legislation represents the product of more than 4 years of 
bipartisan collaboration. It reflects the consensus view that the 
Copyright Office is better positioned to serve the public if the 
Register is no longer treated like a subordinate official within the 
Library, but as the seat of expertise and property protection that it 
is, regardless of who the Librarian or who the President may be.
  To reiterate, this issue has been under discussion since before 
anyone knew the former Librarian would be leaving or a new Librarian 
would be taking over.

                              {time}  1245

  When these discussions began, there was a Democrat in the White 
House, and it was clear that our next President would be, possibly, a 
Democrat as well. Yet both Republicans and Democrats have supported the 
reality that undergirds this bill, and we have supported what is good 
for American innovation and our creators and our dreamers, rather than 
worry about what specific President may make the next appointment to 
this Office.
  The legislation is the first step in the Judiciary Committee's work 
to modernize the Copyright Office, which is now needed more than ever. 
As the vice-chair of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee, I will 
continue to push that effort forward, to look at ways to promote better 
infrastructure and technology at the Copyright Office, and to work to 
update our music licensing laws.
  H.R. 1695 is the beginning, rather than the end, and our commitment 
to copyright modernization and the support of these ideas underpinning 
it continue to receive broad support.
  The rule provides for a bill that is, simply put, good policy. The 
opportunity before us is not about one individual but establishing the 
right process for selecting the Copyright Register and future 
Registers. The bill would increase accountability within the Copyright 
Office and take the first steps toward making sure our Copyright Office 
works for this century.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that I thank the chairman of the 
full Judiciary Committee, Bob Goodlatte, and the ranking member, John 
Conyers, for their hard work on this; and also a special commendation 
to Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, who sponsored an amendment that 
actually strengthened this bill and provided a process moving forward 
that will help and, I think, bring all parties some semblance of 
structure and form as we move forward in this process, a beginning, as 
I said, the first step in a modernization of our Copyright Office.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to begin by wishing my colleague from Georgia a happy 
International Copyright Day, right up there with Thanksgiving and 
Christmas as great American holidays.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying 
bill. Look, first of all, 60 hours; we have less than 60 hours before 
the Federal Government of the United States will shut down, and here we 
are filling time with a bill. Of course, the concept deserves to be 
debated and fleshed out, but is it really what we should be talking 
about when we are 60 hours away from the shutdown of our Federal 
Government?
  Now, it feels like we have been here before. Now, sometimes it is 
because, unfortunately, we have been brought to the brink of economic 
disaster, just as Republicans seem to do every time government funding 
or the debt ceiling is about to expire. We know it has happened before. 
We know it will happen again.
  Maybe it is time for a short-term CR; maybe it is an omnibus, but, 
look, that is what we should be doing right now. There will be plenty 
of time, plenty of time to figure out the intricacies of copyright and 
the oversight of the Office after we make sure that the basic functions 
of government are able to continue after 60 hours.
  And even if we do keep the government open, all we are doing is 
kicking the can down the road and not allowing American businesses or 
individuals to plan for the future.
  Can you imagine if your family didn't know if you would have a job or 
what salary it would be at every few months?
  Now, look, congressional salaries, they are exempt from government 
shutdowns, of course. If they weren't, perhaps we would be discussing 
the government shutdown with 60 hours to go until other Federal workers 
are prevented from coming to work.
  Even at this moment, we don't have a full-year appropriations bill. 
We have a continuing resolution that expires midnight on Friday. Those 
are the priority issues that the American people want us to focus on. 
When we deal with what is urgent, that will allow us the time and the 
space for thoughtful consideration of Copyright Office oversight.
  We need to get past this bitter partisanship and this brinksmanship. 
Even the rule we are considering today is problematic and partisan, 
which is why I am in staunch opposition. It doesn't allow all the 
amendments to come to the floor, including one from my colleague, Ms. 
Lofgren, that I tried to amend the rule to allow, and it was turned 
down in Rules Committee by a partisan vote.
  We don't have an open rule, as Speaker Ryan promised to provide as we 
got back to what was called regular order, allowing our Democratic and 
Republican colleagues to improve and enhance bills, offer their ideas 
up for consideration. If a majority adopt them, they can be included in 
the overall bill.
  Instead, we are considering a rule that effectively stops debate on 
important amendments that were omitted and brings forward a politically 
motivated bill about the head of the Copyright Office.
  Simply put, this bill would take the authority of hiring and firing 
the Copyright Register, who is the head of the Copyright Office, from 
the Librarian of Congress, and give it to the President, with Senate 
approval. It effectively politicizes the Office of the head of the 
Copyright Office.
  Now, it sounds innocuous, but what it means is that special interests 
will be involved with picking the person to make decisions over who 
receives a copyright. Yet, again, through this bill, Congress is 
choosing the big, powerful interests over the consumers, over 
innovation, and over the little guy.
  As the Electronic Frontier Foundation said: this bill is ``designed 
to . . . allow powerful incumbent interests to use their lobbying power 
to control this increasingly politicized Office. And while the 
Librarian of Congress still oversees the Copyright Office, the

[[Page 6002]]

Librarian of Congress would not be able to remove the Register no 
matter how poorly they perform their job.''
  Under this bill, the position of Register of Copyrights will be yet 
another political position and will, frankly, stall one of the great 
projects they are embarking on, the modernization effort that is 
desperately needed at the Copyright Office. The last thing we need is 
political cronyism in the Copyright Office.
  Let's talk a little bit about the history of the position of the head 
of the Copyright Office. Most of the first century of America, U.S. 
District Court clerks processed copyright applications themselves. Now, 
that was obviously inefficient to foist on the judicial branch, and, in 
1870, Congress centralized the power of copyrights at the Library of 
Congress. Seven years later, the Copyright Office was created as a 
separate department within the Library, and the Register of Copyrights 
was established as the head of that Office.
  Why depart from history so radically now? Why give in to increasing 
executive authority in a time when many of us are concerned about the 
growing powers of the Presidency? Frankly, some of this seems to be 
about the personal dislike of the Librarian, Dr. Carla Hayden, or the 
general situation with the most recent Register who departed last 
October, Maria Pallante.
  It appears that some believe that Dr. Hayden should not have 
reassigned Ms. Pallante, so there is a micromanaging of particular 
personnel issues, but an inspector general's report stated that Ms. 
Pallante was clearly deficient in her duties, especially around those 
of modernization of the Office.
  As just one example, the inspector general discovered that the 
Copyright Office wasted 6 years and nearly $12 million attempting to 
implement an Electronic Licensing System. Based on the IG report, it 
would seem that the Librarian had a valid reason to reassign the 
Copyright Register last October, and she definitely had every right to 
do so, as the head of the Library. The last thing we want is 
politically motivated decisionmaking in a personnel process around 
performance at the Library of Congress.
  Since the Librarian of Congress, Dr. Carla Hayden, was appointed in 
2015, she has been pulling the Library of Congress and the Copyright 
Office into the 21st century. And if we move the appointment into the 
hands of the President, we are taking away the ability for the 
Librarian to supervise the Office of Copyright and continue to do this 
work. We are going to stop progress dead in its tracks.
  With hundreds of Presidential appointees who haven't even been 
nominated, no less approved, and the glacial pace of Congress, it could 
be years before a Librarian is confirmed under this new scheme.
  Look, we all understand and agree that there are problems that we 
need to work on together with regard to the copyright process to bring 
it into the 21st century. Again, with 60 hours away from a government 
shutdown, now might be a time to focus on keeping government open and 
perhaps having a more thoughtful debate, removing the passions around 
the personnel involved after we continue to keep government open.
  This bill, unfortunately, does not solve the problems with 
copyrights. It makes the situation worse because it slows down a 
desperately needed modernization indefinitely and would hurt the public 
and consumers.
  The last thing we need is a more autonomous Copyright Office. After 
the obscene wasting of taxpayer dollars, do we really want to provide 
for more politically motivated decisionmaking within the Office of the 
Copyright? I think the answer is no; that is why I oppose the rule. I 
oppose the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I will have more time to discuss 
especially the IG report and what it may say here in just a moment. I 
yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), 
another strong advocate in our protections of copyright and others in 
this intellectual property debate.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1695, the 
Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act.
  I am an original cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation. It was 
introduced by Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers, making 
this Register of Copyrights a position nominated by the President and 
confirmed by the Senate. It was passed out of the House Judiciary 
Committee by a vote of 27-1. It is completely appropriate that we bring 
this provision to the floor.
  As a co-chair of the Congressional Songwriters Caucus, and a 
Representative of middle Tennessee, which is the Nashville area, it is 
home to many content producers and creators, in particular, to 
songwriters. Creators deserve to know that they will have a Register 
who will do a couple of things really well: is accountable to the 
people through their elected Representatives, and will provide 
independent and expert advice to Congress.
  According to a report prepared by the International Intellectual 
Property Alliance: the total copyright industries employed nearly 11.4 
million workers in 2015, accounting for 7.95 percent of all U.S. 
employment, 9.39 percent of all private employment in the U.S. The 
average annual compensation paid to employees of the total copyright 
industries in 2015, per employee, $82,117, exceeds the average annual 
wage by about 21 percent.
  Intellectual property must be protected. Copyrights must be 
protected. Congress has a role in making certain that these 
constitutional provisions are held and, also, making certain that the 
Office is responsible to Congress. I urge the House to move forward on 
this commonsense measure.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren), the distinguished ranking member on the 
Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that should be opposed, and 
I agree with Mr. Polis that it is unfortunate it is being rushed 
because this may be one of the more significant votes we will take 
about our economy in this Congress.
  I have heard a lot of rhetoric that this isn't about the Librarian. I 
am sorry, it is about the Librarian. Dr. Carla Hayden is probably the 
most qualified Librarian of Congress who has ever served. She has done 
more in the last 6 months to advance modernization in the Library and 
the Copyright Office than her predecessor did in the prior 2 decades. 
If we prevent her from appointing a new Register, that effort will be 
stalled, and I think that would be tragic.
  It has been mentioned that somehow, by making this a political 
position, it would be more accountable. I beg to differ. Mr. Polis has 
mentioned the view of the Electronic Frontier Foundation that this 
would enhance special interests. What they have actually said, and I 
think it is very pertinent, is that the bill would allow powerful 
incumbent interests to use their lobbying power to control this 
increasingly politicized Office.
  No President is going to select an appointee who will be shot down by 
the special interests. That is quite different than the Librarian who 
removed the prior Register because of, I believe, the inspector 
general's scathing report about the failure to computerize that office, 
essentially wasting $12 million, while misrepresenting that fact to the 
Librarian and to Congress.
  The national library groups, including the national Copyright 
Alliance, the American Library Association, and the like, say this:

       It's difficult to understand how the public or Congress 
     itself would benefit from politicization of the Register of 
     Copyrights' position by making it subject to Presidential 
     appointment and Senate confirmation as this legislation 
     proposes. Such politicization of the position necessarily 
     would result in a Register more actively engaged in policy 
     development than in competent management and modernization.

  That is what we want out of a Register. We don't want a partisan for 
one side of the issue. We want somebody who can run, in an efficient 
way, the Copyright Office.

[[Page 6003]]

  Now, a word about the amendment that has been bandied about as 
somehow giving Congress a greater say. I value the friendship of my 
colleague, Sheila Jackson Lee, who I have served with for so long, but 
I fear her amendment does not accomplish what she said because the 
President's power to appoint is limited only by Senate confirmation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman from California an additional 30 
seconds.
  Ms. LOFGREN. It is limited only by Senate confirmation. It cannot be 
limited by a list prepared by Congress.

                              {time}  1300

  I would just say, finally, that if there is a conflict of interest, 
as has been suggested, the Librarian cares only about the public 
interests. It is Donald Trump who has the 30 copyrights, and I don't 
think we should ask President Trump to take this position with that 
conflict of interest, something that all of us have been concerned 
about.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, again, this is about policy. This is about moving 
forward in the modernization process. I believe that Ms. Hayden is 
fully qualified to be Librarian of Congress. I think the issue comes in 
the Copyright Register's Office, not the Librarian herself.
  There are some issues also. It has been interesting because I have 
been involved in this now my whole time in Congress, and this issue of 
copyright protection and intellectual property, I have to say 
Electronic Frontier Foundation are good folks, but we disagree, many of 
us in the content community and also the intellectual property, with 
the views of a more open or less inhibited copyright protection, which 
we believe is the very heartbeat of the innovative system. It is 
protecting the copyright as we go forward.
  So just simply to have somebody saying that they are looking out for 
the big guy, I am looking out for the single songwriter. I'm looking 
out for the person right now in their home pecking out their first 
novel, working on their first articles. These are the kinds of things 
that need protecting. This is the little guy we are talking about. This 
is making this modernization happen, and we are going to continue to 
move forward.
  We have differences of opinion. That is fine. But I think in looking 
at this big picture, we are talking about a Register's Office that has 
so much work in our economy as a whole, we are just simply looking 
toward the first step of modernization.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. DelBene.)
  Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the 
underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to take a step back 
and consider the unintended consequences of this legislation.
  As a former member of the Judiciary Committee, I had the opportunity 
to hear firsthand from a very diverse range of stakeholders on their 
experiences in dealing with the Copyright Office, and one of the most 
common refrains I heard was the dire need for modernizing the Office 
and updating their IT systems to be more user-friendly. So I was very 
disturbed to learn recently that 6 years and nearly $12 million were 
wasted on yet another failed government IT project, this time at the 
Copyright Office. This waste of taxpayer dollars is unacceptable, and 
any legislation to reform the Office ought to have successful 
modernization as its primary goal. This legislation fails that test.
  H.R. 1695 sets back the clock on considerable progress that has been 
made already under the leadership of the new Librarian of Congress, Dr. 
Carla Hayden. The bill puts the power to appoint the head of the 
Copyright Office in the hands of a President who, as of February, still 
had around 2,000 appointments sitting empty. This kind of delay will 
set back the Office when it is finally on the right track.
  And to what end?
  It seems that this bill is just another solution in search of a 
problem.
  A vote for this bill is a vote to stop progress, a vote to continue 
to waste tax dollars, and a vote to add one more person to the list of 
positions that President Trump seems to have no interest in filling. I 
am very concerned that this is a misguided experiment without a clear 
purpose and that taxpayers will be the ones who foot the bill when it 
doesn't succeed.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who is the ranking member on the 
Subcommittee of Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet on the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the underlying legislation, which I 
view as a great step forward.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard about the misdeeds alleged of the prior 
Register of Copyrights, and we have heard what a wonderful Librarian 
Carla Hayden is; and I agree, she is a wonderful Librarian. But this 
bill is not about individuals. It is not about whether the last 
Register was a good or bad Register. It is not about whether she knew 
what she was doing on modernization or not. This bill is an 
institutional bill. This bill is against politicizing. This bill is for 
strengthening and enhancing the stature of the Office of Register of 
Copyrights.
  The committee held 4 years of hearings on the Copyright Act. There 
are many contentious issues that we will be bringing to the floor over 
the next couple of years on that. This was not one of them. This issue 
had broad support.
  Everybody agrees that the Office of Copyright must be modernized. 
What this bill does is to take it and give it a little more 
independence from the Library of Congress. The Librarian of Congress is 
an interested stakeholder. There are many stakeholders in Copyright. 
Librarians are stakeholders, tech people are stakeholders, content 
creators, movie studios, authors, and editors--there are lots of 
different stakeholders. No stakeholder should be in a controlling 
position.
  The Librarian of Congress is in a controlling position, and there is 
a consensus that that ought to be reduced. I, personally, and a lot of 
other people think the Register's Office should be taken out of the 
Library entirely. But this bill is a compromise. It doesn't do that. It 
simply enhances the stature of the Copyright Office by making this a 
Presidentially appointed office for a 10-year term.
  You talk about politicizing? Right now, President Trump could, if he 
wished, fire the Librarian tomorrow. The Librarian serves at his 
pleasure, and the Register of Copyrights serves at her pleasure. So the 
President totally controls the Librarian of Congress and the Register 
at any time.
  This bill would say that the President, with the advice and consent 
of the Senate, would appoint the Register who would have a 10-year 
term. That gives her or him more independence, obviously, and it 
enables them to undertake the proper modernization.
  One of the problems we saw was that the modernization requirements of 
the Library of Congress are very different from the modernization 
requirements of the Copyright Office, and one seemed to take precedence 
over the other, which is not surprising when one is subject to the 
other and part of it.
  So this bill would increase the stature of the Copyright Office. It 
would make it less political by giving the incumbent a 10-year tenure 
during good behavior. There are powerful interests who have an 
interest, and they would be one step further removed because of the 10-
year tenure.
  This is a bill that has broad bipartisan support. Almost every 
interest group that deals with the Copyright Office is in favor of 
this, from the authors to the directors, to the songwriters, to the 
motion picture people, you name it.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, but I am opposed to the 
rule.

[[Page 6004]]


  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, thank goodness, hopefully, we 
will get this rule passed and we will get to this bill so the gentleman 
can be in support of it, that is as we move forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today President Trump plans to unveil a tax cut proposal 
that would vastly reduce the business tax rate for international 
corporations and even for his own real estate empire. We have no way of 
knowing how many millions he personally might save through this so-
called Trump loophole--no idea--unless he releases his tax returns. 
Democrats have been calling on the President to release his tax returns 
for this reason and so many others. We cannot allow the White House to 
be used as a tool to enrich the President and his family.
  Up until now, every President since Gerald Ford has disclosed his tax 
return information. These returns have provided a basic level of 
transparency to help to ensure the public's interest is placed first. 
The American people deserve the same level of disclosure from this 
administration. If they continue to refuse to provide it, then we, as 
the people's elected Representatives, should hold the executive branch 
accountable.
  If not us, who?
  Mr. Speaker, when we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Eshoo's bill, which 
would require Presidents and major party nominees for the Presidency to 
simply release their tax returns.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
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 excellent proposal, I yield 4 
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado for his 
leadership and for yielding me time.
  Here I am again. I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying 
bill, and I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that 
my bipartisan--this is both Republicans and Democrats--this bipartisan 
legislation, the Presidential Tax Transparency Act, can be made in 
order for debate and a vote.
  The Presidential Tax Transparency Act is very simple. It would 
require this President, all future Presidents, and Presidential 
nominees from both major parties to publicly disclose their tax 
returns. Until recently, most Americans thought this disclosure was 
required by law, but it actually has been a tradition. It has been a 
voluntary disclosure by every President of both parties since 
Watergate.
  This long disclosure tradition exists because, A, the American people 
demand a baseline level of transparency from the highest officeholder 
in the land, and each one of the Presidents wanted the American people 
to know that their first and top priority was the American people's 
interest and not their own financial interests. This last Saturday, 
April 15, thousands of Americans in 125 cities across the country 
participated in tax marches calling for the President to release his 
tax returns.
  Now, why did they do this on holy Saturday?
  Because they care and they are deeply concerned about the President's 
conflicts of interests and his foreign business entanglements.
  The President's refusal to release his tax returns is just one 
example of his administration's historic lack of transparency as we 
near the 100-day mark of the administration. As questions about his 
associates' ties to Russia continue to swirl, yesterday, the White 
House refused to provide information about General Flynn's Russia 
contacts to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Just 
before the Easter holiday, the White House also announced that it will 
break with precedent and will not make its visitor logs public. This is 
added to the fact that the President's meetings and golf outings at his 
properties in Florida, New Jersey, and elsewhere--where he has so far 
spent one-third of his Presidency, according to The Washington Post--
are also off the books.
  Who is the President meeting with? Who does he listen to? Do his 
personal financial interests come first, or do the interests of the 
country come first?
  The President's business empire makes him more susceptible to 
conflicts of interest than any President in our history, yet he has 
done less to address these conflicts than any President in modern 
history. Since 1978, every President has placed their assets in a real 
blind trust. Instead of following this tradition, the President has 
turned his business over to his sons in an arrangement that the 
nonpartisan Office of Government Ethics called ``meaningless from a 
conflict of interest perspective.'' It was later revealed that the 
President can draw profits from this trust at any time, and his son 
acknowledged that he will provide his father with periodic reports 
about the state of his family's businesses.
  This is not right. This simply does not pass muster for anyone in the 
country. This is not Republican or Democratic. This is not partisan. 
The President should release his tax returns.
  Now, as the gentleman said previously, this is, again, critically 
important because it is reported that the President is going to come 
out with a tax plan today and reportedly cut the tax rate on pass-
through entities.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. ESHOO. For all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, and all of these 
conflicts of interest, it is why the President needs to reveal his tax 
returns, it is why we have bipartisan legislation.
  We should defeat the previous question and sign on to the discharge 
petition so that this bipartisan legislation can come before the full 
House to ensure that the President provides transparency to the 
American people now and in the future.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  What I really think this bill is about is President Trump wanting to 
put a Big Business friend in charge of an office that can do personal 
favors for him and his family. We know that the President and his 
family have, or are seeking, dozens of copyrights. Here is a great 
one--here is a copyright on his book, ``Trump: The Best Golf Advice I 
Ever Received.'' Now, don't get me wrong, he probably deserved a 
copyright. I am sure a ghostwriter wrote it for him and he had a strong 
contract with that ghostwriter. Since it seems that all the President 
spends his weekends and our taxpayer dollars doing is golf, the last 
thing we want is want him to put one of his golfing buddies in charge 
of the Copyright Office.
  Who is to say the next copyright application from Donald Trump won't 
be disputed?
  Placing his friends, business associates, and, yes, golfing partners 
in high places could help tip the scales in his favor, providing 
profits for him and his family at the expense of the American people.
  I would like to take a moment to speak to a few of the defenses I 
have heard about the need for this bill. There is the one stating the 
President would pick the Register from a list of experts provided by a 
group, including the Librarian.
  But guess what?
  That list is nonbinding, so the President can easily ignore the 
recommendations and do whatever he wants, which is what this President 
usually does anyway.

                              {time}  1315

  I have also heard the argument that the Register will be more 
accountable and somehow transparent as a Presidential appointee. 
Hogwash. That is

[[Page 6005]]

the opposite of the truth. There is as much transparency for a non-
Presidential appointee once in their position; and it is much less 
likely that a President is going to demand the resignation of the 
Register than the Librarian is going to reassign them, as the Librarian 
did last year when the Register was failing, as confirmed by the 
inspector general report.
  Finally, there seems to be the argument that there were a large 
number of hearings in the committee on this issue and that somehow this 
is the work product of those hearings. Well, if you look at the record, 
there was not one hearing on this bill. There were hearings about 
general copyright reform. There was no hearing on how this bill might 
have a devastating impact on the need to modernize the Copyright 
Office, creating huge delays for important efforts. There was no 
hearing on whether this bill could profit the President and his family 
at the expense of the American people.
  This is a problematic bill under a problematic rule that doesn't 
allow good ideas to come forward and be debated. We aren't even able to 
debate helpful amendments.
  I know of at least one important amendment that isn't being allowed 
to be debated on the floor, which is Representative Lofgren's amendment 
that would allow the current Librarian to fill the existing vacancy at 
the Copyright Office, and when that Register leaves, the new process 
would then apply. It seems like a commonsense transition process. Why 
can't we get a simple vote on that amendment?
  I say again, this bill is a solution in search of a problem. Frankly, 
this bill makes the problem worse by giving the President the chance to 
put his business associate and golf buddies in charge of his own 
copyrights.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to refrain 
from engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sure the President's personality is perfectly 
charming. I certainly wouldn't disparage his personality. What I am 
talking about is him putting a golf buddy or a business associate in 
charge of an office that he receives a direct profit from. That is 
called conflict of interest. That is what we are debating here today. 
It is not about the President's personality. Obviously, he is perfectly 
charming in person. I would be happy to have dinner with him. I am 
still waiting for the invitation.
  The Copyright Office has an important function. In order to fulfill 
that function of registering copyrights, it needs to be a neutral 
arbiter. By making the head of the Copyright Office a political 
advocate, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, it 
will increasingly politicize copyrights, the basic protection Americans 
rely on regarding the tradeoff between payoffs for innovation and the 
right of consumers for dissemination. There is no chance a political 
appointee will be neutral, by nature of them being a political 
appointee.
  A political appointee will likely be the puppet of big corporations 
and the administration in their decisions around registration of 
copyrights. That doesn't help the budding author, it doesn't help the 
budding musician in a dispute, and it certainly doesn't help anyone 
trying to navigate an outdated and archaic system that needs to be 
modernized. This bill will indefinitely delay the modernization 
process.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and 
``no'' on the bill. The last thing we need is President Trump's golf 
buddies to be in charge of his own copyrights to further profit the 
President and the First Family, who have pleasant personalities.
  Do we really want to give more power to the administration so they 
can do favors for themselves and their own business interests? I hope 
not. Let's vote ``no.''
  We should be considering a funding bill to keep the government open 
instead of waiting until the absolute last second, hurting businesses 
and Americans with the huge amount of uncertainty created.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, 
``no'' on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Again, regardless of the last discussion, there are things about this 
bill that I have talked about when we first started, and doing this 
actually brings us into a position of modernizing the Copyright Office, 
which has been discussed a long time.
  I do want to address, just briefly, that there has been some 
discussion about an IG report. There has been discussion about, 
especially, the former Register of Copyrights.
  As I made clear in the conference, this has nothing to do with that 
being brought up. Implying things that were out of this IG report was 
basically attempting a character assassination of the former Register 
of Copyrights.
  I think in doing so, it has to be understood that, even in that IG 
report that is discussed, one of the Library's own responses back to 
the concerns of the IG report was that, in 2015, the inspector general 
found that the Copyright Office was compliant with all library 
methodology. With respect to its primary software applications, the 
Electronic Copyright Office and Copyright Imaging System, which support 
registration and recordation functions and are managed by the CTO, were 
all in compliance. I think that is really interesting as we look at 
this.
  But also what this IG report actually did say was that there were a 
lot of other problems. In fact, the GAO report in 2015 said the Library 
does not have the leadership to address IT management. That is why the 
Copyright Office was having to look at this because, also, in August 
2015, of the Library's poor response and modernization, which are 
things that we are looking toward and how much this affects our 
economy. Because of the Library's problems, the electronic licensing 
system went down; and for 10 days, no one could register a copyright.
  In fairness, you may not like this bill, you may not like the current 
structure, and that is fine; but when we discuss the Library, there are 
a lot of issues that I am sure will be addressed in the relevant 
committees in their oversight on this IG report. That is what they are 
designed to do.
  What we are designed to do here is also not take and pick and choose 
and cherry-pick what parts of the report we want to talk about because 
we are trying to justify the current Librarian's decision last fall. 
When we understand this, we will begin to move forward on the Copyright 
Modernization Act.
  Let's get back to the real functionality of what this is, not who we 
appoint or how they are appointed, but the fact that this matters to 
millions of people and also accounts for trillions of dollars in our 
industries across the world.
  The Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act is an 
important and bipartisan step. I repeat again, it came out with a vote 
of 27-1 in the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Speaker, I serve on that 
committee. That is not a usual vote on legislation that is making a 
positive, large, lasting impact that we are seeing on this. It is the 
first step rather than the last step in modernization.
  As we look forward to this, I will simply say this is a good bill. It 
has been perfected by both Republicans and Democrats. As I have said 
before, Sheila Jackson Lee, the Congresswoman from Texas, was very 
helpful putting this package together, along with the chairman and 
ranking member on both sides of the aisle, as we come forward with 
this.
  It is sort of a shame that, when we come to this bill, we diverge 
into rabbit trails away from the real issue. The real issue is let's 
help those folks who depend on the Copyright Office. Let's make 
modernize it. Let's make it the tool it is supposed to be, and that is 
the adviser of the expert in these issues for Congress. When we do so, 
at that point in time our economy continues to

[[Page 6006]]

flourish, we get aside from the theatrics, and we get back to the real 
importance of the bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

            An Amendment to H. Res. 275 Offered by Mr. Polis

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. 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. 
     305) to amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require 
     the disclosure of certain tax returns by Presidents and 
     certain candidates for the office of the President, and for 
     other purposes. 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 among and 
     controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority 
     members of the Committees on Ways and Means and Oversight and 
     Government Reform. 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. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 305.
                                  ____


        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. 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. POLIS. 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 234, 
nays 191, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 224]

                               YEAS--234

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     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
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     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
     Herrera Beutler
     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
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     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--191

     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
     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 (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa

[[Page 6007]]


     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
     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
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Cleaver
     Marino
     Newhouse
     Slaughter
     Tonko

                              {time}  1345

  Mses. JACKSON LEE, BASS, Mrs. BEATTY, Messrs. GOTTHEIMER, and 
COURTNEY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 225.
  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 will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237, 
noes 186, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 225]

                               AYES--237

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     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
     Crist
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     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
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     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
     Schneider
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     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

                               NOES--186

     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
     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 (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     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
     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
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cole
     Duncan (TN)
     Marchant
     Marino
     Newhouse
     Slaughter
     Tonko

                              {time}  1353

  Mr. RUSH 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.

                          ____________________