mr. butterfield: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. carson of indiana, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. carson will vote yes, he will vote yes on h.r. 4502. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. donald payne, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. payne will vote yes on h.r. 4502. as the member designated by mrs. bonnie watson coleman, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mrs. watson coleman will vote yes on h.r. 4502. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois seek recognition ms. underwood: as the member designated by mr. rush, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. rush will vote yes on h.r. 4502. the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 219. the nays are 208. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does

mr. butterfield: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. butterfield: madam speaker, i rise today to recognize the important work being done all across north carolina to reduce food insecurity. i commend the outgoing president of the north carolina association of county commissioners, ronnie smith, for his leadership on this effort. ronnie is also chair of the martin county board of commissioners, a constituent, and a good friend. under ronnie's leadership, the association's resilt yens -- resilience task force promoted food resilience. they released a report to help counties deepen relationships with the local food banks, improve efforts to transport food to homes and strengthen local food sources to help food insecurity. this year, 42 million people nationwide will experience food insecurity. madam speaker, i applaud president ronnie smith's leadership. i applaud him for his leadership and commend him and the members of the resilience task force fo

mr. butterfield: as the member designated by mr. carson of indiana, pursuant to h.r. 8, i inform the house that mr. carson will vote no, he will vote no on the amendments en bloc number 2. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? ms. underwood: as the member designated by mr. rush, pursuant to h.r. 8, i inform the house that mr. rush will vote no on the amendments en bloc number 2. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. stanton: as the member designated by mrs. kirkpatrick, pursuant to h.r. 8, i inform the house that mrs. kirkpatrick will vote no on the amendments en bloc number 2. as the member designated by mr. grijalva, pursuant to h.r. 8, i inform the house that mr. grijalva will vote no on the amendments en bloc number 2. as the member designated by mr. o'halleran, pursuant to h.r. 8, i inform the house that mr. o'halleran will vote no on the amendments en bloc number 2. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia

mr. butterfield: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. carson of indiana, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. carson will vote no, he will vote no on the motion to adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 197. the nays are 225. the motion is not adopted. the house will be in order. the gentleman from new york has six minutes remaining. the gentleman from pennsylvania has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. morelle: yes, thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members, members, please carry your conversations off the well. members. members, the house will be in order. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. morelle: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm prepared to close if the gentleman is so i'd like to reserve for closing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. reschenthaler: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm prepared to close, and i yield myself the little

mr. butterfield. you are recognized. >> thank you, very much, metro detroit here madam chairman, i had a suspicious that congressman burgess owens withdrew from the panel and i do not know that as a fact and i have to establish the facts before i reach conclusions. may i ask the ranking member if congressman owens was present when ms. williams testified? and able to hear and see her testimony as if he were in the committee room? >> i don't know the answer to that. i know that mr. owens was going to vote like he would if he was in person. because of the remote hearings, and the proceedings that are so new, i think these are issues that maybe we can address in the future, prefer that his words not be stricken because remote committee proceeding regulations only require that participating members keep their cameras on not witnesses. if we continue down this path we'll argue that he was not participating in the hearing, so i think it's semantics on issues and maybe we can get some clarification in the fut

mr. butterfield

mr. butterfield had raised a point of order come up which would postpone for further discussion until after the vote. mr. butterfield, your recognize. >> before the break, i raise the point of order be here -- because i had a suspicion that congressman burgess owens had withdrawn from the panel. i do not know that to be a fact. i need to establish the facts before i reach my conclusions. may i ask the ranking member if congressman owens was present when ms. williams testified? and able to hear and see her just might as he would if he were in the committee room? >> i do not know the answer to that. i know mr. owens was going to vote, like he would if he was in person. because of remote hearings, and the proceedings are so new, i think these are issues that we could address in the future. i prefer his words not be stricken, remote made perceiving regulations only require the participating members keep their cameras on, not witnesses. if we continue down this path, we will argue that he was not participating in the hearing. i think it is semantics on issues. if we could get clarification in th

mr. butterfield is recognized. >> thank you for convening this hearing today and thank you to the witnessesr testimony and it's good to see all of my colleagues i look forward to the return to washington. madam chair, as a law student many years ago as a lawyer and as a supreme court justice over the years i've had many occasions to read and study court opinions and law review articles about the clause and i've come to the same conclusion every time i read about it it seems to me to be unambiguous. so i want to begin today by asking each of the witnesses the first question should congress choose to pass a regulation affecting do you agree or disagree that such regulation will preempt and let me go to each one of the witnesses. i guess i can go in the same orderhe that you testified. >> the basic answer i would argue is yes. >> unambiguous? >> yes. >> the next witness. >> contrary to state laws it will create new in some places but in some cases if they conflict then it's absolutely preempt. >> representative butterfield, i do agree it is unambiguous that under the clause, congress haser bro

mr. butterfield: as the member designated by mr. carson of indiana, pun to h. res. 8, i inform the house that mr. carson will vote yes, he will vote yes on h.r. 2497. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. fulcher of idaho, punt to h. res. 8, i inform the house that mr. fulcher will be voting yea. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? ms. velazquez: as the member designated by by chairwoman carolyn maloney of new york, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that chairwoman maloney will vote yes on h.r. 2497. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from vai seek recognition? ms. wexton: smelgd mr. mceachin, pursuant to h. res. 8, i inform the house that mr. mceachin will vote yes on h.r. 2497. as the member designated by ms. porter, pursuant to h. res. 8, i inform the house that ms. porter will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what p

mr. butterfield is recognized. >> thank you very much, madam chair for convening this very important hearing today and certainly, thank you to the witnesses for your testimony and it's good to see all of my colleagues, i look forward to our return to washington. madam chair, as a law student many, many years ago, as a lawyer, as a trial judge, a supreme court justice over the years i've had many occasions to read and reread and study court opinions and law review articles all about the elections clause. and i come to the same conclusion, every time i read it and read about it, the elections clause, seems to me to be unambiguous. so i want to begin today by asking each one of our witnesses the very same question, should congress choose to pass a regulation affecting federal elections, do you agree or disagree that such regulation will pre-empty those passed by a state? and let me go to each one of the witnesses. i guess i can go in the same order that you testified. >> yeah, i mean, the basic answer i would offer is yes, i see no harm in it. it's -- you know-- >> unambiguous in your world? >>

mr. butterfield is recognized. >> thank you very much, madam chair for convening this important hearing today and thank you to the witnesses for your testiny. it's good to see all of my lleagues. i look forward to our return to washington. adam chair, as a lawtudent many years agond a lawyer, as a trial judge d supreme court stice over the years, i have had many occasions to read and reread and study court opinions and law review articles all about the elections clause. i come to the same cclusion every time i read it and read out it. the elections ause seems to me be unambiguous. i want to begin today by asng each one of our witnesses the veryame question. should congress choose to pass a regulation affecting federal ections? do you aee or disagree? that such regulation will preempt those passed by a state? let me go to each one of the tnesses. i will go in the same quarter you testified. -- in the se oer you testified. >> i'm just aorking historian. the basic answer is yes. i see no harm in it. >> is it unambiguous in your world? >> yes. >> all right, next witness. >> it will preempt state

mr. butterfield: as the member designated by mr. carson of indiana, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. carter will -- mr. carson will vote no, he will vote no on the amendments en bloc number 3. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. keller: madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. kelly of pennsylvania, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. kelly will vote yes on en bloc number 3. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from connecticut rise? mrs. hayes: as the member designated by ms. wilson, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that ms. wilson will vote no on the amendments en bloc 3. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. moolenaar: madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. aderholt of alabama, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. aderholt will vote yes on the ryan en bloc number 3. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the gent

mr. butterfield. thank you for the witnesses for your testimony today and your dedication on a bipartisan basis take you for your incredible work at fda you noted in your testimony your progress has been made to me say that progress has not been even. and with caregivers and researchers and then to recognize the cost with that 2019 guidance on drug development. so to understand how have da one that was rejected even though it showed a 30 percent slowing of a six-month prolongation and so my understanding that one i've been out to demonstrate. >> and the questions very important and how we view our work. we are operating in a manner that is fully consistent with our guidance to understand there has been a light of hope with certain therapies and they may have disappointed with some programs. and our guidance in those that are so rapidly progressive and we also as we look and that they put in front of us that there has to be a higher pressure for risk with some degree of uncertainty. >> and with that fi