[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 154 (Friday, October 14, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H6925-H6934]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2273, COAL RESIDUALS REUSE AND
MANAGEMENT ACT
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 431 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 431
Resolved, That at any time after the 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. 2273) to amend subtitle D of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act to facilitate recovery and beneficial use, and
provide for the proper management and disposal, of materials
generated by the combustion of coal and other fossil fuels.
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 Energy and
Commerce. 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 the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy
and Commerce now printed in the bill. The committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
All points of order against the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the
committee 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 committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fortenberry). The gentleman from South
Carolina is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Thank you, sir.
For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield
myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. 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 South Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. House Resolution 431 provides for a
structured rule for consideration of H.R. 2273, the Coal Residuals
Reuse and Management Act, and makes in order six amendments.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying
bill. The underlying bill would provide for a consistent, safe
management of coal combustion residuals, or coal ash, in a way that
protects jobs, while encouraging recycling and beneficial use of these
materials.
This legislation, simply put, is one of the best job creation bills
we can bring before the House of Representatives. By allowing States
the opportunity to take control over their individual disposal needs,
instead of being forced to follow an intrusive and overreaching EPA
rule, we will save as many as 316,000 American jobs.
The EPA proposed regulation will increase the electricity cost and
the construction costs around the Nation, while costing electric
utilities and business owners up to $110 billion. While we all agree we
must be responsible in protecting our environment, I am struggling to
understand why on Earth the EPA continues to propose rules in a vacuum,
as opposed to considering the overall impact on our country.
Coal ash has never been proven to be toxic. But what it has been
proven to be is extremely useful in strengthening everyday products
from concrete to sheet rock to bowling balls.
{time} 0920
In my district, South Carolina's First, the American Gypsum Wallboard
Plant in Georgetown County uses coal ash from Santee Cooper, our local
electric utility, to produce environmentally friendly wallboard.
American Gypsum has invested $150 million in this facility and created
more than 100 jobs while redeveloping an old steel mill for their
facility. The EPA's proposal to regulate coal ash as a hazardous waste
threatens industry's ability to recycle this material in beneficial
use. This, along with the increased regulatory, electric, and
construction costs, is jeopardizing jobs all across America.
This legislation puts in place appropriate controls--and let me
emphasize ``appropriate''--for the safe management and disposal of coal
ash, while still encouraging investment in recycling and beneficial
use.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the
underlying legislation. This is the way Federal regulations should be
implemented, and it is the way we will protect American jobs while
protecting the environment at the same time.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on
the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank my friend from South Carolina for
yielding
[[Page H6926]]
me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this
structured rule and the underlying legislation. I should point out to
my colleagues that Democrats yesterday introduced an amendment in the
Rules Committee to make this an open rule, but, unfortunately, every
single Republican on the Rules Committee voted against making this an
open process. So much for Speaker Boehner's pledge for an open House of
Representatives.
This rule makes in order six amendments; six out of 16 submitted,
less than half that were offered to the Rules Committee. Included in
those amendments was an amendment by Mr. Kissell which would have
required, essentially, that all the components of the infrastructure
that would create these holding facilities for steel ash would have to
be made with American products, so that it wouldn't be made with
Chinese steel, it would be made with American steel, American concrete,
and American rebar. I have no idea why that was controversial. The
American people are worried about jobs, and there was an opportunity to
make an amendment in order that would have protected and ensured
American jobs, and they wanted no part of it.
Mr. Speaker, once again, the Republicans are jamming a rule through
the House that shuts down the debate and cherry-picks a handful of
amendments.
I should also point out that this bill that we're debating here today
didn't even have a hearing--no hearings. I thought we were going to
adhere to regular order, and that means that the committees of
jurisdiction hold a hearing on the legislation--not a general hearing
on the topic, but on the legislation. No hearings were held on this.
Discussion on this bill the other night in the Rules Committee was, I
thought, kind of comical. The chairman of the Rules Committee, someone
who's served in this institution a very long time, said he would have
preferred an open rule but said that the schedule forced him to vote
against my amendment to make this an open rule. The schedule? The same
House schedule where we go into recess every 2 weeks?
Mr. Speaker, the American people want us to address the challenges
that are facing our economy. They want us to be focused on the issue of
jobs. And we're not legislating under this schedule that the
Republicans have put into place. Since there were no hearings on this
bill and since there were a lot of amendments that were offered, we
should have had an open process. And if it took us a couple of days to
debate and vote on this bill, so be it. That's the way this place is
supposed to work.
Yesterday on the floor, we wasted time debating an abortion bill that
is going absolutely nowhere, a bill that is designed to inflame and
divide our country. I would suggest to my friends on the other side of
the aisle, instead of bringing up hot-button social issues designed to
fire up the right-wing base, maybe they should think about bringing a
jobs bill to the floor of the House of Representatives.
In reality, Mr. Speaker, we should be debating the President's jobs
bill, and yet the Republican leadership has refused to allow us even to
have a vote on the bill. If my friends on the Republican side don't
want to vote for a jobs bill, then they can vote against it, but we
ought to be able to have a vote on the President's jobs bill.
The fact is that it's been 281 days that we've been in session--281
days without a jobs bill, 281 days that the Republicans have stood on
the sidelines while Americans struggle to make ends meet, struggle to
put food on the table, struggle to make house payments, struggle to
find a job to pay their bills. We need a real jobs plan, not another
bumper sticker bill demonizing the EPA, which is what today's bill is
all about.
The American people don't want us wasting time on these trivial
bills, bills that are going to go nowhere. What they want us to do is
to pass a jobs bill. They want, Mr. Speaker, us to pass the President's
jobs bill. Don't take my word for it. The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll
that was released this week shows that nearly two-thirds of Americans
want the President's jobs bill. The poll finds that 63 percent of
Americans support the President's bill and that only 32 percent oppose
it. It's not even close. The American people want action on jobs. They
want to go back to work. They want us to do something meaningful, and
they want us to do it now.
Mr. Speaker, if there's one thing that the new House majority has
been consistent on this year, it's their almost religious crusade
against the EPA. H.R. 2273 fits right in with their political agenda to
undermine the agency at any cost and, in the process, threaten the
health and safety of the American people, all under the guise of job
creation. I'm appalled that that is their idea of a jobs bill.
Mr. Speaker, coal combustion waste is enormously toxic. It contains
an array of the most harmful chemicals out there--mercury, lead,
cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and arsenic--that are especially
devastating to the development of children. Over the years, billions of
tons of coal ash have been dumped in poorly designed waste pits and
containment sites in communities across the country.
I want to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle of the
catastrophic coal ash spill in Kingston, Tennessee, in 2008 where 1.1
billion gallons of liquid coal waste seeped out of a contaminated pool
and contaminated local drinking water. I would also remind my
Republican colleagues that it cost the taxpayers more than $1 billion
to clean up that disaster, and that residents in the Kingston area are
still dealing with its continuing effects.
H.R. 2273 is a bad piece of legislation, and it flies in the face of
commonsense safety precautions when disposing of hazardous materials.
By leaving the establishment of coal ash safety standards solely to the
discretion of States, this bill simply encourages a ``race to the
bottom'' where the State willing to have the least protections will
become the dumping ground for the entire country. And H.R. 2273 leaves
taxpayers on the hook for paying for another cataclysmic disaster like
the one in Tennessee.
Mr. Speaker, I don't think any of my colleagues would want their
families, their wives or husbands or children, living anywhere near the
vicinity of a coal ash dumping site.
H.R. 2273 is another Republican bill that undermines commonsense
health and safety protections from toxic chemicals and ultimately
lowers the quality of living for millions of American families.
I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and instead send it back to
the Rules Committee. Let's have an open rule. Given the fact, again,
the bill didn't have a hearing, we should have an open rule here. I
would urge my Republican colleagues to finally get to work on putting
the American people back to work.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I'm confused. It doesn't take a lot to confuse me, but I'm confused
today. The gentleman from Massachusetts consistently talks about the
fact that there's been 281 days without a jobs bill. I want to know the
definition of a jobs bill, because if you create jobs, my assumption is
that we're talking about jobs bills. There is no question that the
current legislation that we're talking about saves up to 316,000 jobs.
I'm going to call that a jobs bill.
There's no question that the free trade agreements create about one-
quarter of a million jobs. Those are jobs bills. The Boiler MACT saves
jobs, and Cement MACT saves jobs. So what we've done in this Congress,
in this House, is talk consistently about how to rein in the regulatory
environment to not only create jobs but to retain jobs.
{time} 0930
So my perspective is simple: When you have legislation that comes
before the House that actually creates jobs, those are jobs bills. It
is not an ultimatum. The President's jobs bill is simply an ultimatum,
do it all or nothing at all. There is no question about it that even
the Senate cannot find cosponsors of the President's legislation and
pass the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia,
Mr. David McKinley.
[[Page H6927]]
Mr. McKINLEY. I rise in support of the rule.
As we stand here 30 years into this discussion on coal ash, H.R. 2273
has essentially two parts:
The first part codifies the previous EPA studies that concluded that
coal fly ash is nonhazardous and can be recycled for beneficial use.
This was the essence of H.R. 1391, but in H.R. 1391, we heard from the
constituents about the concern for disposal.
The second part was then incorporated into the new bill, which
provides for all new and existing landfills and surface impoundments to
be State-run with EPA assistance, approval, and oversight. We are
trying to finally resolve the issue.
The issue of disposal is taken on firsthand in H.R. 2273 by allowing
requirements for composite liners, fugitive dust controls, groundwater
monitoring, financial assurance, and structural stability. H.R. 2273 is
strongly endorsed by State environmental officials, including the
Environmental Council of States and the Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Officials, as well as various labor unions.
Now let's get back to the byproduct, itself.
Coal ash is an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal, just like
putting logs in a fireplace. Every day, coal ash is produced in nearly
700 coal-fired generating plants in 48 of the 50 States in America.
Approximately 140 million tons are produced annually with 40 percent of
that fly ash being beneficially recycled.
Over the years, scientists and entrepreneurs have developed uses for
that coal ash through a variety of recycling options. Businesses were
emboldened to recycle the material after two studies by the EPA in 1993
and 2000. Both concluded that coal ash was not a hazardous material and
could be used by the public. The findings of the 2000 study
specifically stated that no documented cases of damage to human health
or the environment have been identified because of fly ash.
As a result, industries have sprung up all across America. Hundreds
of thousands of jobs have been created by recycling fly ash into the
concrete of our bridges, our roads, and our buildings. It's used in
masonry block and brick, and is in our houses by virtue of its use in
drywall panels and roof shingles.
Even the Tennessee Valley Authority, with the cooperation of the
Department of Health and Human Services, comprehensively examined the
health effects from the Kingston dam accident in 2009. Their conclusion
was that there were no significant human health impacts from the
Tennessee coal ash spill.
Those companies across America using the byproduct are caught up in
the uncertainty swirling about this issue of the recycling of the
material, and may be forced to switch to more expensive alternatives.
According to the Veritas report, repealing this section of the bill and
allowing the EPA to designate coal ash as a hazardous material would
cost the consumers as much as $110 billion and cost 316,000 jobs.
Let's be frank. The opponents of this bill and this rule clearly have
an anti-coal agenda. Even interagency reviews of the EPA's plan to
designate coal ash as a hazardous material show that the idea is
opposed by the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the
Council of Environmental Quality, and the Army Corps of Engineers. They
want the continued use of recycled fly ash and want to reject its
possibility of being treated as a hazardous material.
This is not a time for people who dislike fossil fuels to be pushing
their personal agendas and ideologies. To those who lack compassion and
understanding about the real world, these are real jobs at stake here.
It's really that simple. Therefore, anyone who opposes this rule and
this legislation embraces the loss of 316,000 jobs and higher utility
bills.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
To the gentleman who just spoke, I would remind him that we're
debating the rule here. We could have this debate about whether or not
there are health concerns here or not. I happen to believe there are,
and I think most scientists believe that there are health concerns that
we should take into consideration here.
But what's wrong with an open rule? What was so wrong with bringing
an amendment to the floor that would have required that the components
to build these containers, if you will, be made of materials made in
the United States? What's wrong with U.S. steel or U.S. concrete? Why
is that a controversy?
So I would say to my colleagues on the other side who like to say
that they're open, let this be an open rule, especially since there
were no hearings on this particular bill.
My colleague from South Carolina got up and he said he was confused.
I'm sorry he's confused. Let me try to un-confuse him about one thing,
which is, if you want to create jobs, bring the President's jobs bill
to the floor. Economists predict that the American Jobs Act could
create up to 1.9 million jobs next year and boost economic growth by
about 2 percentage points. You've got a twofer here. Not only do you
put people back to work, but you help to reduce our deficit when you
put more people to work. If we could lower the unemployment rate in
this country by a few percentage points, we could lower our deficit.
Why is that so controversial?
Rather than focusing on partisan bills that don't mean much for the
economy, it's time for the Republicans to take up the American Jobs
Act, which is fully paid for, includes bipartisan ideas, will create
jobs, and grow our economy now. What we should be doing every single
day on this House floor is focusing on jobs, on putting people back to
work. Instead, today is another bill attacking the EPA, and yesterday
we did an abortion bill. I mean, we're talking about everything but how
to put people back to work, so I would urge my colleagues to get their
priorities straight.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
so much for taking the time to clarify that which is not clear as it
relates to the President's objectives of creating a one-size-fits-all,
take-it-or-leave-it jobs bill that doesn't create jobs but that does
create another $500 billion hole for the taxpayers to take care of.
What we're talking about, however, sir, is a bipartisan approach to
legislation in the House. In the Energy and Commerce Committee, with a
vote of 35-12, 6 of the 23 Democrats supported this bill; of the Boiler
MACT, 41 Democrats supported that bill; of the Cement MACT, 25
Democrats supported that bill. What we've done here is to create an
atmosphere that is conducive to a bipartisan approach to solving the
environmental concerns and challenges of our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina,
Dr. Foxx.
Ms. FOXX. When I heard my colleague from Massachusetts talk about the
President's jobs bill, I couldn't resist responding to it.
As my colleague from Massachusetts very well knows, the President's
jobs bill was defeated in the Senate. It was introduced in the House by
request. Only the person who introduced it has sponsored it, and there
are no cosponsors. The Democrats are simply not serious about the
President's jobs bill. They are using this as a political ploy. If the
Democrats were really serious about it, they would all be signed on to
the bill, but they are not.
{time} 0940
Republicans are offering real alternatives to the situation that the
Democrats have presented to us. We're signing on to our bills. We're
voting for our bills.
The Senate is controlled by the Democrats. They can't pass the
President's jobs bill over there. It failed. It failed on a bipartisan
vote.
And let me point out to my colleague from Massachusetts that when the
Democrats took control of the Congress in 2007, the unemployment rate
was 4.6 percent. When Republicans gained control of the House again in
January of this year, the unemployment rate had increased to 9 percent.
What they want us to do is go back to the failed policies that
existed in the 4 years that they were in control of the
[[Page H6928]]
Congress and the 2 years that they controlled the Congress and the
White House.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would remind my colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentlelady
from North Carolina, that over half the Senate--over half the Senate--
voted to bring up the President's jobs bill. Over half the Senate
supports the President's jobs bill. But under the arcane rules in the
United States Senate, you need 60 votes to have lunch, never mind pass
a bill.
So it wasn't defeated. A majority actually support the President's
jobs bill. It is the Republicans who are obstructing this legislation,
who are using procedural tricks to keep this bill from coming up before
the United States Senate for a clean up-or-down vote. It is Republicans
in the House of Representatives who are saying that none of us will
have an opportunity to vote on the President's bill.
I mean, here's a good idea. You bring up what you want to bring up;
you let us bring up what we want to bring up. The President's bill, as
I said, is very popular. The legislation, I would remind my friend from
South Carolina, is paid for, is paid for.
The legislation's specifics as well as the idea of taxing the very,
very, very wealthy to pay for it are popular with the American public,
and that's according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
So, I mean, what are you afraid of? If you don't want to vote for
legislation to help put people back to work, then you don't have to
vote for it. You go home and explain to your constituents why you're
against the bill.
What we should be doing here in this U.S. House of Representatives
is, every day, debating and legislating on ways to be able to put this
country back to work. You want to reduce the deficit? Put people back
to work. If you want to improve the economy, put people back to work.
It's simple. And we're doing everything in this place but debating
legislation to put people back to work.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlelady from West Virginia, Mrs. Shelley Moore Capito.
Mrs. CAPITO. I thank my colleague on the Rules Committee from South
Carolina.
I would like to ask the gentleman from Massachusetts who's been
talking a lot about the jobs bill and the President's jobs bill, and my
question to him is: If it's such a great jobs bill, why does it only
have three cosponsors on the bill? I don't think that says much for the
emphasis on your side of the aisle or in this whole House behind the
President's jobs bill.
But today I want to rise in support of the rule of H.R. 2273, and I
want to congratulate my colleague from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley) for
his very dutiful work in this area. To me, this legislation is in
response to the EPA's ideological war on Appalachian jobs.
The EPA is intent on regulating coal as a hazardous material. It is a
wrongheaded move, given that the material has been used in household
construction for years.
This bill simply allows States to regulate coal fly ash under their
long existing solid waste disposal programs. This bill is
environmentally and economically responsible because it allows the EPA
to set enforceable minimum standards but leaves ultimate regulations
and enforcement to the States, where it belongs.
If the EPA is permitted to regulate coal ash as a hazardous material,
it could have a devastating effect on my State's economy. We generate
97 percent, maybe up to 99 sometimes, of our electricity from coal
naturally, because we're a very large coal producer.
Regulating this as a hazardous waste would result in less coal use
and would throw thousands of coal miners out of their jobs. Electricity
prices would skyrocket, which would hurt manufacturers and households.
I just think that we're talking about jobs. Let's talk about creating
jobs, but let's not destroy 316,000 jobs in the process of this
regulatory regime that we've seen over the last several years. We know
from the EPA's own statements that they don't really consider job loss
or economic loss when they put forward these onerous provisions, so we
cannot afford to let the EPA put more Americans out of work.
I support the rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would say to the gentlelady from West Virginia, I don't know how
many cosponsors there are on the bill, but I want to vote for the bill.
I'm willing to propose a unanimous consent request that we amend this
rule and we bring up H.R. 12 today. If the gentleman on the other side
of the aisle is willing, let's bring it up and have that debate right
now.
I am happy to yield to the gentleman if he wants to agree to that
unanimous consent.
Well, the silence, Mr. Speaker, is deafening.
The fact of the of the of the matter is that we are going to finish
up today at 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock or whatever and then go on another
week recess when the American people are struggling, when there are
millions of people who are out of work, when there are millions of
families struggling to try to pay their mortgages, when there are
millions of families who are trying to figure out how they're going to
have the resources to send their kids to school. This is the best we
can do? Come on, we can do a lot better than this, Mr. Speaker.
I would again urge my colleagues to get serious and, if you don't
like the President's jobs bill, then vote against it. It's that simple.
But let us bring a bill to the floor that by every measure, by every
public opinion poll that is out there, is popular. The American people
want it. You always like to invoke polls. Well, the polls
overwhelmingly show the American people support this. So let's bring
that bill to the floor.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I would just say to my good friend from
Massachusetts that the President's jobs perspective seems to be, since
February of 2009, a loss, a net loss of 2.2 million jobs. So let's just
absorb that for a moment.
We ought to get serious about not using the American people as a pawn
for partisan politics and get serious about working in a bipartisan
fashion, as we have on the Boiler MACT, the Cement MACT, and now on
this current bill. If we work for Americans' future, we will find more
jobs created and saved in America.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, Dr.
Larry Bucshon.
Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the
underlying bill.
I guess yesterday there was some confusion at the White House about
the Republican plan for job creation, and I would like to just point
out that in early June we released that, and it can be found on
jobs.gop.gov if the President is interested.
The Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act stops the administration
from another attempt to enforce unachievable standards that don't
provide the health or environmental benefits that are claimed. And in
exchange for no benefits, we're going to give up more jobs in States
and industries than cannot afford more setbacks. In my State of
Indiana, 95 percent of our electrical energy depends on coal. It would
be devastating.
An independent study released earlier this year found that as many as
316,000 jobs will be taken away if this rule is enacted by the EPA. At
a time when the President is touring the country promoting his jobs
bill, I think it's hypocritical of his own EPA to promulgate a rule
like the coal ash rule that's been shown by outside organizations to
kill jobs.
So this is my question: Why is the EPA focusing on regulating coal
ash when they, themselves, say the materials do not--I repeat, do not--
exhibit any of the four characteristics of hazardous waste? Their own
extensive studies reported to Congress show that coal ash does not
exhibit corrosivity, reactivity, ignitability, or toxicity. Why then
are we forcing through a regulation that goes against EPA's own
findings?
The reason is because of an ideological, anti-coal agenda from the
administration. That's why.
{time} 0950
But the concern on most Americans' minds is job creation, and this
here is
[[Page H6929]]
a jobs bill. To let the EPA regulate coal ash rather than leaving it to
the States' hands would only create jobs at the EPA. We need more jobs
in Indiana's Eighth Congressional District. For that reason, I support
the rule and I support the underlying bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My colleague on the Rules Committee from South Carolina said we
should all work in a bipartisan way, and I agree. And that's what the
President attempted to do. His jobs bill represents a series of
initiatives that were all bipartisan, that were all bipartisan until he
announced he wanted to move on it, and then all of a sudden it became a
partisan deal. Everything in the President's jobs package has been
sponsored in a bipartisan way. So I don't understand why now. If you
want to call it the Republican idea, I don't care what you want to call
it, but bring it to the floor and allow us to be able to debate these
bipartisan initiatives that will put people back to work.
Again, I would say about the rule, where's the openness here? I mean,
the majority of amendments that were offered were not made in order,
including an amendment that would require that the building materials
for these holding tanks be made in America. Why is that so
controversial? Why is making things in America a radical idea to my
Republican friends? Why is it somehow a bad thing to insist that the
steel used to build these plants be made in the United States of
America and not China? I mean, we all should be on the side of American
workers here, and that means standing up and making sure those jobs are
here in the United States. So let's open this rule up so we have an
opportunity to protect American jobs.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. John Shimkus.
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHIMKUS. I'm just here to speak in support of the rule.
First of all, on April 14, 2011, the Subcommittee on the Environment
and the Economy, which I chair, held a legislative hearing on the coal
ash bill, H.R. 1391. Based on this hearing and working with Democrats
in the subcommittee, we modified the bill. We changed the bill, and
then we had a voice vote out of subcommittee. Then we went to the full
committee, and we had a bipartisan vote in the full committee. I think
at least six Democrat votes, and two more that would have had they been
there for the process. So we are working together with Democrats to
bring a sensible bill to the floor.
If we don't do this, it's projected in the coal ash recycling
industry of this country we will lose 38,000 to 119,000 jobs. So we
trust the State regulators. They do it for municipal solid waste. We're
just making coal ash recyclable, the same as we do for municipal solid
waste. It has bipartisan support. Thank you, Rules Committee, for
making the amendments in order. I think five of the six amendments are
Democrat amendments. So it's not perfect, but it allows us to move
forward.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, I appreciate the words of my colleague from Illinois, but H.R.
1391 is not H.R. 2273. There was no legislative hearing on H.R. 2273.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. SHIMKUS. It's not because of the input we got from Democrats to
change that original bill. So that's why. I mean, it was bipartisan.
Mr. McGOVERN. I reclaim my time.
So the new definition of openness under the Republican majority is
you don't have to have a legislative hearing on a bill that you bring
to the floor, but you can say it doesn't matter or that you did, or
whatever. This is not the way this place is supposed to work. This
process is not what my friends on the other side of the aisle promised.
Again, I have yet to hear a good reason why this is not an open rule.
Given the fact that there was no hearing on this specific bill, given
the fact that there were a number of germane amendments that were not
made in order, given the fact that during the debate there may be
Members on both sides of the aisle who may have ideas they may want to
bring to the floor and amend this bill, and also given the fact that
one of the amendments that was not made in order was an amendment that
would have required that the materials that are used to make these coal
ash containers be made in the United States of America, why is that
such a heavy lift for my friends on the other side of the aisle?
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank my friend from Massachusetts.
I don't understand. This is a very, very important issue. This is an
issue about dealing with fly ash and how we're going to contain it and
process it and protect the citizens. It's also an opportunity for us to
deal with one of the fundamental economic problems we have in the
United States, which is the loss of manufacturing. There's going to be
a lot of different kinds of equipment, material, steel, cement, other
kinds of materials that are going to be part of the process that this
bill calls for, that is, adequately dealing with fly ash. Why wouldn't
you want to put into this piece of legislation that those materials,
those pieces of equipment, be manufactured in the United States?
We need to rebuild our manufacturing base in this Nation. We've lost
more than 50 percent of it over the last 25 years. We need to once
again make it in America. And I tell you, you put this amendment into
this bill and we'll see one more piece of American manufacturing coming
back into place. It actually works.
In the Recovery Act, which you like to call the stimulus bill, there
was a paragraph put in that says if you're going to use the
transportation funds in this bill, then you must buy equipment made in
America. In Sacramento, California, Siemens has built and is continuing
to expand a manufacturing plant because of that provision. Hundreds of
people in California are employed because Congress wrote into the bill
money spent on trains and buses and light rail will have to be spent on
equipment manufactured in America. So Siemens is doing it.
Write into this piece of legislation, and there will be new
manufacturing plants in America making the equipment to deal with the
fly ash. It is eminently sensible, so why be unsensible? Why block this
amendment?
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Jeff Duncan.
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 2273, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act.
As I see it, the three main problems facing the American economy
today are the uncertainties coming from taxation, regulation, and
litigation. This tone-deaf administration continues to propose new
forms of taxation on American job creators to the detriment of our
workers and our economy. The administration continues the threat of
litigation in the form of the unprecedented and unconstitutional
attacks by the National Labor Relations Board against my home State of
South Carolina. And we see the EPA creating costly regulations that are
forcing businesses not to make decisions on an annual or quarterly
basis, but having to make decisions to comply day to day.
Fortunately, the House has worked to turn back some of these actions,
but there is much work left to be done. The House recently passed two
bills, H.R. 2681 and H.R. 2250. These bills seek to prevent a pair of
excessive regulations from going into effect that would put hundreds of
thousands of Americans out of work. One EPA regulation, the Boiler MACT
rule, is expected to cost businesses and consumers around $14 billion,
resulting in a loss of over 220,000 American jobs.
{time} 1000
Today we begin discussing the administration's EPA regulation of coal
ash that will drive up electricity costs for millions of Americans, as
well as construction costs for roads and homes all around the country.
From 1999 to 2009, American industries successfully recycled 519 tons
of coal ash, some 38 percent of the 1.35 billion tons of coal ash
produced. Recycling coal ash keeps electricity costs
[[Page H6930]]
low, provides for low-cost durable construction materials, and reduces
the amount of waste going into the landfills. In other words,
continuing to recycle coal ash is good for our economy and it's good
for the environment.
Yet the administration continues this headlong rush to destroy
American jobs and wreck the American engineering sector. The EPA is
considering treating coal ash as a hazardous waste. This is simply the
latest bureaucratic overreach from this administration on behalf of
their friends from the left-wing fringe and environmental movement. The
impact of this government overreach would be nothing short of
disastrous, with an estimated impact of $110 billion over the next 20
years and around 300,000 jobs lost. The bill we are debating today
would end that nonsense before it can start.
Keep in mind, America, it allows that coal ash to be regulated not by
the left-wing zealots at the EPA, but by the States. Our Founding
Fathers included the 10th Amendment in the Constitution so that these
issues could be handled by the States, not a burdensome Federal agency
with a political agenda and an axe to grind.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Yesterday the President revealed that
he had raised $70 million for his campaign. If our President spent as
much effort freeing job creators from excessive regulations as he spent
raising campaign donations from environmental extremists, far more
Americans would be able to find work today.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, a new study from Tufts University shows that we can
create tens of thousands of new jobs by requiring safe disposal of coal
ash. Ensuring that coal ash disposal sites protect human health and the
environment will take work. It will take construction workers,
equipment operators, and engineers. And this isn't a ``make work''
effort. These jobs will provide tremendous benefit to the communities
in which they take place. But these jobs will not happen if we pass
this bill. This bill basically preserves the status quo. So if we want
to create jobs, I think we need to vote this bill down.
Again, Mr. Speaker, we're still trying to get an understanding on
this side of the aisle as to why we don't have an open rule and why an
amendment that would require that job stability infrastructure for all
of this, that all the materials be made in America. If we want to
protect American jobs and create American jobs, we have to stand up and
fight for American jobs and fight for American workers.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. We are prepared to close; so we reserve
our time until then.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me close by, again, first of all,
saying that this rule should be an open rule and that, at a very
minimum, the amendment that would require that the materials that would
be used to construct any of these containers be made in the United
States of America. It's important that we stand up for American jobs.
It's important that we make it in America. And so this rule deserves to
be defeated based on that alone.
This process is also bad and flawed because there was no hearing on
this particular piece of legislation, and the ranking member of the
full Energy and Commerce Committee did not think, based on what he
said, that this was a particularly bipartisan, open process. In fact,
there are some Members who supported this bill in committee who will
not support it on the floor because of promises that were supposedly
made that were not kept. So, for a whole bunch of reasons on process,
we should defeat this rule.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, on the underlying bill, I would remind my
colleagues that part of our job here is to protect the safety and well-
being of the people we represent. Coal ash contains arsenic, lead, and
many other toxic materials that can escape into the air or water if the
material isn't properly contained. We should be concerned about the
safety implications here. We should be concerned about any consequences
that may result in poor regulation and poor oversight. And to
basically, again, take this time on the floor to again take another
slap at the EPA because that's the favorite punching bag of my friends
on the Republican side of the aisle, I think, is not a credit to this
institution and is not doing what we were elected to do, and that is to
make sure that we are upholding the safety and protecting the people of
this country.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that the problem is
all regulation, only EPA regulation. There was an interesting opinion
piece that appeared in The New York Times by a fellow named Bruce
Bartlett--he had held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W.
Bush administrations, served on the staff of Jack Kemp--who did a piece
for The New York Times entitled, ``Misrepresentations, Regulations and
Jobs.''
I'll read a couple of the lines from his piece. He says:
``Republicans have a problem''--and he's Republican himself.
``Republicans have a problem. People are increasingly concerned about
unemployment, but Republicans have nothing to offer them.''
He further says: ``No hard evidence is offered for this claim'' that
all the uncertainty within business is tied to regulation.'' He says
that notwithstanding the lack of evidence, the Republicans repeated
this assertion ``endlessly throughout the conservative echo chamber.''
He also says: ``While concerns about regulation have risen during the
Obama administration, they are about the same now as they were during
Ronald Reagan's administration, according to an analysis of the
federation's data by the Economic Policy Institute.''
He ends by saying this: ``In my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is a
canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic
problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year
in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political
opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.''
I bring that up not to say that regulation isn't a problem and that
we should not deal in a constructive way with needless regulation--the
President said that in his speech to the House when he introduced his
jobs bill--but it is not the only problem out there. And to suggest
that bringing bills like this to the floor are going to somehow create
jobs is just patently false.
If we want to create jobs in this country, we should bring the
President's jobs bill to the floor. Again, the American people
overwhelmingly support what the President outlined in his speech before
the Congress; and all the things that he articulated, I say to my
friend from South Carolina, were bipartisan ideas. Republicans and
Democrats all cosponsored legislation on various pieces of his
proposal. Why now they have become controversial is beyond me.
I'll just close with this: At some point I hope my friends on the
other side of the aisle will get serious about the issue of jobs; at
some point I hope they will bring something meaningful to this House
floor that, if passed, will actually put people back to work, because
up to this point the Republican leadership has failed miserably. And I
think people all across this country--and you see this reflected in the
public opinion polls--have had it. They're tired of this constant
agenda of hot-button issues and of trivial matters that we debate
passionately and important ones not at all.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to defeat the previous
question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment
to the rule to make in order an amendment by Mr. Garamendi of
California which was submitted to the Rules Committee. They didn't make
it in order even though it is germane and fully paid for and meets
every requirement of the rules of the House. The amendment would make
sure that construction materials used to build holding facilities for
coal ash are made in America.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
[[Page H6931]]
Mr. McGOVERN. Again, Mr. Speaker, let me repeat, the amendment we
want to make in order would make sure that construction materials used
to build holding facilities for coal ash are made in America. Why that
should be controversial is beyond me. Why anybody on either side should
oppose that is beyond me.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
[From the New York Times, Oct. 4, 2011]
Misrepresentations, Regulations and Jobs
(By Bruce Bartlett)
Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and
George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of
Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.
Republicans have a problem. People are increasingly
concerned about unemployment, but Republicans have nothing to
offer them. The G.O.P. opposes additional government spending
for jobs programs and, in fact, favors big cuts in spending
that would be likely to lead to further layoffs at all levels
of government.
Today's Economist Perspectives from expert contributors
Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and
corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during the
George W. Bush administration and there is no reason to
believe that more of them will have any today. And the
Republicans' oft-stated concern for the deficit makes tax
cuts a hard sell.
These constraints have led Republicans to embrace the idea
that government regulation is the principal factor holding
back employment. They assert that Barack Obama has unleashed
a tidal wave of new regulations, which has created
uncertainty among businesses and prevents them from investing
and hiring.
No hard evidence is offered for this claim; it is simply
asserted as self-evident and repeated endlessly throughout
the conservative echo chamber.
On Aug. 29, the House majority leader, Eric Cantor of
Virginia, sent a memorandum to members of the House
Republican Conference, telling them to make the repeal of
job-destroying regulations the key point in the Republican
jobs agenda.
``By pursuing a steady repeal of job-destroying
regulations, we can help lift the cloud of uncertainty
hanging over small and large employers alike, empowering them
to hire more workers,'' Mr. Cantor said.
Evidence supporting Mr. Cantor's contention that
deregulation would increase unemployment is very weak. For
some years, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has had a program
that tracks mass layoffs. In 2007, the program was expanded,
and businesses were asked their reasons for laying off
workers. Among the reasons offered was ``government
regulations/intervention.'' There is only partial data for
2007, but we have data since then through the second quarter
of this year.
The table below presents the bureau's data. As one can see,
the number of layoffs nationwide caused by government
regulation is minuscule and shows no evidence of getting
worse during the Obama administration. Lack of demand for
business products and services is vastly more important.
Bureau of Labor Statistics
These results are supported by surveys. During June and
July, Small Business Majority asked 1,257 small-business
owners to name the two biggest problems they face. Only 13
percent listed government regulation as one of them. Almost
half said their biggest problem was uncertainty about the
future course of the economy--another way of saying a lack of
customers and sales.
The Wall Street Journal's July survey of business
economists found, ``The main reason U.S. companies are
reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than
uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority
of economists.''
In August, McClatchy Newspapers canvassed small businesses,
asking them if regulation was a big problem. It could find no
evidence that this was the case.
``None of the business owners complained about regulation
in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome
it,'' McClatchy reported. ``Some pointed to the lack of
regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the
financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of
2007-9 and its grim aftermath.''
The latest monthly survey of its members by the National
Federation of Independent Business shows that poor sales are
far and away their biggest problem. While concerns about
regulation have risen during the Obama administration, they
are about the same now as they were during Ronald Reagan's
administration, according to an analysis of the federation's
data by the Economic Policy Institute.
Academic research has also failed to find evidence that
regulation is a significant factor in unemployment. In a blog
post on Sept. 5, Jay Livingston, a sociologist at Montclair
State University, hypothesized that if regulation were a
major problem it would show up in the unemployment rates of
industries where regulation has been increasing: the
financial sector, medical care and mining/fuel extraction. He
found that unemployment rates in these sectors were actually
well below the national average. Unemployment is much higher
in those industries that one would expect to suffer most from
a lack of aggregate demand: construction, leisure and
hospitality, business services, wholesale and retail trade,
and durable goods.
Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution,
asserts that if businesses were really concerned about rising
regulations, they would be investing now to avoid them. But
there is no indication that this is the case. ``The real
reason for anemic investment and hiring is that businesses
are not confident there will be enough potential customers to
justify expansion or even routine capital replacement right
now,'' he says.
In my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented
by Republicans that allows them to use current economic
problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business
community year in and year out. In other words, it is a
simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to
deal with high unemployment.
{time} 1010
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, history is a measure of
progress. And when it comes to the two topics that I keep hearing from
Mr. McGovern, my good friend to the left, it's openness and job
creation. So let's examine history.
In the 111th Congress, I would like to ask the gentleman from
Massachusetts, can the gentleman tell me how many open rules he brought
to the floor in the last Congress as the vice chairman of the Rules
Committee? The answer is none; no, not one. Under Speaker Boehner, our
record of openness in this Congress is one we can be proud of. All of
the general appropriations bills have been debated under completely
open rules--all of the general appropriations bills, open rules. We've
brought several authorizing bills to the floor under modified open
rules, only requiring preprinting of amendments.
Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. I would just remind my friend that you have already
brought up 30 measures under a closed rule since you took over. Again,
I'm just trying to keep you to your promise that you made about all
this new openness, which we haven't seen. And today is an example of
that.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. The good news is the gentleman from
Massachusetts has once again highlighted the fact that while he looks
in one direction, he refuses to look in the mirror and answer the
question that simply, no, not one, not one in the 111th Congress, one
open rule did he bring to the floor of the House. But I would say that
the Democrats in the last Congress simply gave up on openness. They
just gave up on openness and allowing the American people to see real
debate on the floor of the House.
On the issue of job creation, since February of 2009, the current
administration lost 2.2 million jobs. Two million Americans now out of
work since February 2009, and my good friends from the left continue to
talk about demagoguing and demonizing an issue when they simply have
nothing to prove and nothing to show for what they've done.
I would say this, though: that this week alone in the House of
Representatives we have had the opportunity to empower the job creators
of America to create over 500,000 jobs in just this week. We compare
our record every day to the current administration.
Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks, the House has passed multiple bills
which would stop burdensome government regulations from destroying jobs
all across America. I ask that we do so today.
Enough is simply enough. We cannot allow the EPA--or any other
government agency for that matter--to unnecessarily kill hundreds of
thousands of jobs when our national unemployment is as high as it has
been in the last 25 years. This is a responsible, forward-thinking bill
which everyone in the Chamber should support.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An amendment to H.R. Res. 431 offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in
order as though printed as the last amendment in the report
of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative
Garamendi of California or a designee. That amendment shall
be debatable
[[Page H6932]]
for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent.
Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as
follows:
Page 8, after line 5, insert the following subparagraph:
``(H)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), the coal
combustion residuals permit program shall require new
structures, and changes and additions to existing structures,
to be constructed and maintained with materials manufactured
in the United States.
``(ii) The Administrator may waive the requirement of
clause (i) if the Administrator determines that--
``(I) applying such requirement will be inconsistent with
the public interest;
``(II) materials used to construct and maintain structures
are not produced in the United States in sufficient and
reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory
quality; or
``(III) such requirement will increase the cost of the
construction of, or the change or addition to, the structure
by more than 25 percent.
``(iii) If the Administrator determines that it is
necessary to waive the requirement of clause (i) based on a
determination under clause (ii), the Administrator shall
publish in the Federal Register a detailed written
justification as to why the requirement is being waived.
``(iv) This subparagraph shall be applied in a manner
consistent with--
``(I) United States obligations under international
agreements; and
``(II) applicable labor agreements.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by the
Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
110th and 111th Congresses.)
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 opposition, at least for the moment, 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.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will 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. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237,
nays 166, not voting 30, as follows:
[Roll No. 792]
YEAS--237
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Bass (NH)
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--166
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
[[Page H6933]]
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--30
Bachmann
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Benishek
Clay
Costello
Cummings
Emerson
Engel
Fattah
Giffords
Gonzalez
Jordan
Kildee
Marchant
McIntyre
Meeks
Olver
Paul
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Polis
Rokita
Rooney
Schrader
Slaughter
Stutzman
Wilson (FL)
Young (AK)
{time} 1038
Mr. CRITZ changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. SHUSTER and CULBERSON changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 792, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 792, I was unavoidably detained.
Had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Yarmuth was allowed to speak out of
order.)
Roll Call Ryder Cup
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, on October 3, eight Democrats and eight
Republicans met in an epic competition here at Columbia Country Club in
Washington to contest, for the 10th time, the battle for the Roll Call
Ryder Cup. This is a competition which is intense but with great
sportsmanship, and, of course, the ultimate beneficiary is The First
Tee of Washington for whom this competition has now raised more than $1
million over the last 10 years.
Despite an average age of 58.6 years, which means that all but one of
our players was eligible for the seniors tour, we were able to parlay
our experience and caginess into a great victory--our sixth
conservative victory on the Democratic side. I want to congratulate our
team of Baca, Clyburn, Courtney, Sires, Cooper, Doyle, Richmond and
myself. We look forward to an even tougher competition next year.
But I do want to say that the principles that The First Tee espouses,
things like honest, integrity, sportsmanship and responsibility, were
all on great display during this competition, even to the extent that
Trey Gowdy and Mick Mulvaney called a penalty on themselves during one
of the team matches. So, I think the competition lived up to the
principles of The First Tee, and we look forward to next year's match.
With that, I yield to the gentleman from Florida, the captain of the
Republican side.
Mr. CRENSHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
On behalf of the Republican participants, I want to congratulate
Captain Yarmuth and his team for their outstanding play and for their
narrow victory, and I want to thank all the members of the Republican
team for participating and for showing up.
I think the big winner is The First Tee.
I want to thank all the sponsors because, over the years, they've
raised over $1.5 million for this organization that is involved in all
50 States and that touches the lives of about 5 million young people in
order to teach them through the game of golf about honesty, integrity,
character, and about sportsmanship.
So, again, I thank everyone for being involved.
I just remember the words of those people who watched the University
of Florida football team, which are: Wait until next year.
Mr. YARMUTH. I thank the gentleman.
It was an incredible competition. As Trey Gowdy said just this
morning, if you were there during this event and during the event
preceding, the night before, you could not have told who was a
Republican and who was a Democrat, because the comradery was so nice.
Once again, congratulations to The First Tee.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, this will be a 5-minute
vote.
There was no objection.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 244,
noes 163, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 793]
AYES--244
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeGette
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--163
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
[[Page H6934]]
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--26
Bachmann
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Benishek
Clay
Costello
Emerson
Engel
Giffords
Gonzalez
Johnson (GA)
Jordan
Kildee
Marchant
McIntyre
Meeks
Paul
Pelosi
Polis
Rivera
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schrader
Slaughter
Stutzman
Wilson (FL)
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1048
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.
Stated for:
Mr. RIVERA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 793 I was unavoidably
delayed. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
____________________