[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 81 (Friday, June 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H3366-H3390]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2013
General Leave
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in
[[Page H3367]]
which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous
material on the further consideration of H.R. 5325, and that I may
include tabular material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 667 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 5325.
Will the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) kindly take the chair.
{time} 0916
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5325) making appropriations for energy and water
development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2013, and for other purposes, with Mr. Poe of Texas (Acting Chair)
in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday,
May 31, 2012, all time for general debate had expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment who has
caused it to be printed in the designated place in the Congressional
Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 5325
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for energy and water
development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2013, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--civil
The following appropriations shall be expended under the
direction of the Secretary of the Army and the supervision of
the Chief of Engineers for authorized civil functions of the
Department of the Army pertaining to river and harbor, flood
and storm damage reduction, shore protection, aquatic
ecosystem restoration, and related efforts.
investigations
For expenses necessary where authorized by law for the
collection and study of basic information pertaining to river
and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore
protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related needs;
for surveys and detailed studies, and plans and
specifications of proposed river and harbor, flood and storm
damage reduction, shore protection, and aquatic ecosystem
restoration, projects and related efforts prior to
construction; for restudy of authorized projects; and for
miscellaneous investigations, and, when authorized by law,
surveys and detailed studies, and plans and specifications of
projects prior to construction, $102,000,000, to remain
available until expended.
construction
For expenses necessary for the construction of river and
harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore protection,
aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related projects
authorized by law; for conducting detailed studies, and plans
and specifications, of such projects (including those
involving participation by States, local governments, or
private groups) authorized or made eligible for selection by
law (but such detailed studies, and plans and specifications,
shall not constitute a commitment of the Government to
construction); $1,477,284,000, to remain available until
expended; of which such sums as are necessary to cover the
Federal share of construction costs for facilities under the
Dredged Material Disposal Facilities program shall be derived
from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund as authorized by
Public Law 104 303; and of which such sums as are necessary
to cover one-half of the costs of construction, replacement,
rehabilitation, and expansion of inland waterways projects
shall be derived from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund:
Provided, That the limitation concerning total project costs
in section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986, as amended (33 U.S.C. 2280), shall not apply during
fiscal year 2013 to any project that receives funds provided
in this title.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Scalise
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 3, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Page 28, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present
this amendment.
What we're doing is we're transferring $10 million from the
Department of Energy salary and expenses account over the Corps of
Engineers' construction account. The reason this is critical is because
it allows us to move forward on infrastructure improvements, including
in Louisiana something that we've been trying to do to restore our
coast and get moving on the Louisiana coastal area, which is one of
many projects in the Corps' budget that is backlogged and not funded,
and yet is critical for improving infrastructure, for creating jobs,
and for doing things to protect our wetlands.
Mr. Chairman, I bring this football because in Louisiana we lose one
football field of land every hour along the gulf coast in Louisiana due
to coastal erosion. We have a plan that we put forth. Governor Bobby
Jindal and his team have a solid plan in place that they've moved
forward on. Mr. Chair, this is an authorized program. We're just trying
to make sure that this program can move forward like so many others
across the country that would improve our waterways and would
strengthen our coastlines.
You've got salaries that are being funded for projects now. And if
you look at the Department of Energy, we've actually cut back on a lot
of the work that they do at the Department of Energy. Rightfully so.
They are eliminating programs that are unnecessary, and yet their
salaries still continue to go up.
{time} 0920
You know, we ask people to do more with less. In this case, they're
doing less with more, and so we're moving money out of a salaries
account for people that are doing less work and moving it into actually
doing coastal projects, actually doing work that improves our coasts
and strengthens the area, protects the vital infrastructure for the oil
and gas industry that feeds this Nation's energy needs and the seafood
that feeds this Nation's great taste for great things like shrimp and
oysters and crabs.
This is a bipartisan amendment, and I want to thank the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond) for helping us with this amendment.
I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond).
Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you to my colleague from Louisiana. We have the
great honor and awesome responsibility of representing the coast of
Louisiana.
Mr. Chairman, the coast of Louisiana, since 1950, has sent to the
American Treasury almost $150 billion. Up until 2006, we didn't receive
any revenues back from the Federal Government for drilling off of our
Outer Continental Shelf.
What we do today is ask for the ability to help ourselves, protect
our citizens, and make this country safer. At the end of the day, I'd
like to remind the Chair that our State has over 40 percent of the
Nation's wetland losses. We have 80 percent of wetland loss, we only
have 40 percent of the Nation's wetlands.
If you look at what we give back to this country, I think that you
will see that a $10 million investment would be a very good investment
into our country, into our State, if you look at the cost-benefit
analysis.
Our wetlands produce a third of the Nation's seafood supply and much
of our domestic energy. Our coast is the home to the port, the
country's largest port system. These ports move the overwhelming
majority of our imports and exports in this country.
It's not just about the oil and gas production, it's not just about
Louisiana's importance in terms of our energy production for this
country, but it also makes the residents of Louisiana safer. That
coastal land and those barrier islands produce the first defense
against hurricanes. We also saw during Hurricane Katrina, the
devastation that could be caused.
We're just asking this body to approve this amendment, which will
help
[[Page H3368]]
Louisiana protect our citizens, protect America's energy production.
Mr. SCALISE. I thank my colleague from Louisiana for his comments,
and I just urge all of our colleagues to vote for this amendment so
that we can actually use money to do real projects instead of to fund
the bureaucracy of Washington. Especially when we're actually reducing
the workload that they have to do, let's actually shift that money over
to an area where we can actually increase jobs, protect our Nation,
protect our energy and infrastructure that benefits the entire country.
With that, I would urge passage of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I do appreciate the passion of both of these
gentlemen for coastal restoration. I know it's a high priority for his
district and his State. Of course, the focus is Louisiana, and they
have suffered greatly.
The bill before us includes $10 million to continue studies,
engineering, and design work on various components of their program in
Louisiana. That is more than 9 percent of the entire investigations
account dedicated to continuing work on coastal restoration in
Louisiana.
The committee has had to make some tough choices in this bill,
though. While overall funding for the Corps of Engineers has increased
slightly above the President's request, unfortunately, it is reduced by
4 percent from fiscal year 2012. The construction account,
specifically, is also slightly above the President's budget request,
but that is still a reduction of almost 13 percent from fiscal year
2012.
The Corps has numerous projects already under construction that were
not included in the President's budget and so are unlikely to be funded
in fiscal year 2013. While construction funding is trending downward, I
believe it is most prudent to prioritize funding for ongoing projects
so they can be completed, actually completed, and the Federal
Government can realize the public safety, economic and other benefits
from previous spending rather than starting new projects.
Given this particular project as currently authorized approaches $2
million and likely will continue to grow in costs, it would not be
prudent to begin another new major new project while we have so many
existing commitments.
For these reasons, I must oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues
to vote ``no.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the recognition and rise to express,
first of all, to my colleague and friend from Louisiana my appreciation
for his argument today, and particularly the football analogy that he
used. I say that as a Notre Dame graduate, and I would congratulate him
on his victory the last time our two teams played on the field.
Having said that, however, both he and my colleague on the Democratic
side, I join with the chairman in reluctant opposition to the
amendment. The chairman has opted for a policy of no new starts, a
policy that I strongly support and have opted for during these times of
budgetary constraints.
I would point out that while there is only $10 million in the
amendment before the House today, the fact is this project will cost
several billion dollars by the time we are done, and starting it now is
a cost that we cannot afford to adequately fund because we do not have
the resources in the bill.
Over the last several years, we have, in fact, terminated hundreds of
ongoing projects, to our great dismay and to the weakening of the
infrastructure of our economy in this country. But until we as an
institution, the Congress, have the intestinal fortitude to adequately
fund our infrastructure in these types of very necessary investment--
that is not the argument before us--I cannot support adding to the
inventory of projects that we must start but cannot.
If the allocation for the bill were different, I might be able to
support the gentleman's amendment. Again, as it now stands, we are
short of cash. The fact is the amount in the bill today--and the
chairman and I and every member of the subcommittee fought to add $82
million to the President's request. We are $631 million today, in this
bill, below what we were spending as a Nation on these projects 2 years
ago. We don't have the money, unfortunately, to fund the gentleman's
amendment, and therefore, again, I express my sincere appreciation for
what he wants to do but my reluctant opposition to his amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Holt
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 3, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 7, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $2,000,000)''.
{time} 0930
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, today the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season
officially begins, and so I come to the floor to speak for increased
resources to prevent flood damage, as they have devastated our
communities in New Jersey and around the eastern United States.
In H.R. 5325, Chairman Frelinghuysen and the committee have provided
for the U.S. Corps of Engineers $1.5 billion for planning, training,
and other measures to ensure the readiness of the Corps to respond to
floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. I thank the chairman
and the committee for that work.
This amount is $216.7 million below the amount that the Corps
received for flood preparation in 2012. My amendment would provide an
additional $2 million so the Corps can continue critical lifesaving
flood preparation work. Although this won't close the funding gap, my
amendment would demonstrate the commitment of Congress to addressing
proactively the variety of problems that can result from severe weather
events and flooding.
Last August and September, many central New Jersey residents
experienced flood damage due to Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee.
Evacuations and property damage can be a heavy burden to bear for many
of our constituents. In recent years, there have been deaths in New
Jersey from such flooding.
I was traveling through my district during and after last year's
hurricane and saw firsthand the flooding damage in the Delaware and
Raritan River Basins and elsewhere. When Hurricane Irene hit New Jersey
last year, it cast more than 10,000 people from their homes and left
more than 190,000 utility customers without power; 11 inland rivers and
their tributaries crested, with some at record levels.
The best time to address flooding is before the severe weather
occurs. Unfortunately, it seems that severe weather events like floods
and droughts will become only more common as the Earth's temperature
continues to rise. There are a number of critical infrastructure and
public works projects throughout central New Jersey that the Corps is
at work on, that the Corps is aware of, that the Corps is planning to
deal with, and they must continue in order to prepare for these severe
weather events.
Again, I appreciate the foresight and the wisdom of Chairman
Frelinghuysen. This amendment would provide additional funds and
incentives to the Corps to continue with these important projects.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
[[Page H3369]]
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman, my
colleague from New Jersey, is trying to show support for the Army Corps
of Engineers' construction program. He's been a longtime advocate for
projects important to his district, and I commend him for that.
And I agree with him in his desire to invest more in water resources
infrastructure. There have been numerous flood control needs, for
instance, across the entire country, including our home State of New
Jersey. Experience has shown us that it's cheaper to try to prevent
flood damages than trying to recover from them.
Although I believe the underlying bill that we've put together--Mr.
Visclosky and I--struck a careful balance among all priorities in the
bill, including national security and innovation, I do not have any
objection to his amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would join the chairman in supporting the amendment.
I would mention that the Corps' investment in 2010 alone protected
infrastructure in this country and prevented over $28 billion worth of
damages. The amendment is a modest one and it is spread across all of
the accounts for a 0.14 percent increase. As the chairman noted, he
worked very vigorously to increase the amounts over the President's
request by $6 million. We remain $217 million below last year's level.
So, again, I would join the chair in supporting the amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 3, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $1,000,000)''.
Page 5, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $571,429)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment, which strikes
a million dollars out of the Fish and Wildlife account and it inserts
$571,429 into the Reserve Maintenance account. So it is a net savings
of $428,571, which would go to deficit reduction.
But my purpose is not to focus on the deficit reduction component of
this, Mr. Chairman. My purpose is to make the statement that we have
watched in that Missouri River system, the Pick-Sloan system that has
six dams upstream and the longest channel in the United States going
downstream, and we suffered a flood last summer, the 2011 flood of epic
proportions.
The system had been designed and completed in 1968 based upon the
largest runoff ever, which was 1881. Now it's 2011. Now the Corps of
Engineers declares that last year's flood was a 500-year event. USGS
says it's between a 70- and a 1,000-year event. The Corps picked the
500-year event, which defines it as an anomaly for them, and they
refuse to manage the river in a fashion that protects us from serious
downstream flooding. So instead of creating a habitat for fish and
wildlife, which is the least tern, the piping plover, and the pallid
sturgeon, now we have hundreds of miles of camel habitat--sand and dead
trees--from the flooding.
I have a bill, H.R. 2942, that needs to move through this Congress.
This is an opportunity to speak to the necessity to direct the Corps of
Engineers to protect us from serious downstream flooding and consider
fish and wildlife in the interests upstream. This redirects some of
those funds to that to send a message to the Corps of Engineers to take
a little bit out of their Fish and Wildlife account, which is around
$70 million, and put a little bit into their Maintenance account, which
is around $7 million, and start to adjust this proportion.
But it is a token vote, Mr. Chairman, because there's much more that
needs to be done. We need to be able to discharge 120,000 cubic feet
per second out of Gavins Point Dam and be able to maintain that within
the channel. If we can do that, then the fisheries' interests upstream
have a very minimal impact when the Corps is finally, under H.R. 2942,
directed to adjust the levels to protect us from serious downstream
flooding.
That is the argument. I urge the adoption of this amendment, the
message that would be sent, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, let me commend the gentleman from
Iowa for his strong advocacy and passion for his district and his State
and his constituents. First and foremost, he's very, very concerned
about a critical issue.
We all know that there are significant water resource needs across
our country, and we're doing our best in our bill to address them
responsibly. The clarification I would like to be make is that the
amendment simply adjusts overall account numbers. It does not direct
funding to any specific project.
I would advise, respectfully, the gentleman and any other colleagues
thinking of offering similar amendments--and we understand why people
do; because they have a passion--that under the earmark ban, the final
bill will not include funding towards specific projects in an amount
above the President's budget request.
Instead of listing specific projects, our bill includes additional
funding for categories of ongoing projects, primarily navigation and
flood control. Final project-specific allocations will be made by the
administration following the enactment of our bill.
With that clarification in mind, I'm pleased to support the
gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 0940
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. While I regret that we just received a copy of the
gentleman's amendment while he was speaking, I have no objection to it,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be
postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
mississippi river and tributaries
For expenses necessary for flood damage reduction projects
and related efforts in the Mississippi River alluvial valley
below Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as authorized by law,
$224,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which
such sums as are necessary to cover the Federal share of
eligible operation and maintenance costs for inland harbors
shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
operation and maintenance
For expenses necessary for the operation, maintenance, and
care of existing river and harbor, flood and storm damage
reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related
projects authorized by law; providing security for
infrastructure owned or operated by the Corps, including
administrative buildings and laboratories; maintaining harbor
channels provided by a State, municipality, or other public
agency that serve essential navigation needs of general
commerce, where authorized by law; surveying and charting
northern and northwestern lakes and connecting waters;
clearing and straightening channels; and removing
obstructions to navigation, $2,507,409,000, to remain
available until expended, of which such sums as are necessary
to cover the Federal share of eligible operation and
maintenance costs for coastal harbors and channels, and for
inland harbors shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund; of which
[[Page H3370]]
such sums as become available from the special account for
the Corps of Engineers established by the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965 shall be derived from that
account for resource protection, research, interpretation,
and maintenance activities related to resource protection in
the areas at which outdoor recreation is available; and of
which such sums as become available from fees collected under
section 217 of Public Law 104 303 shall be used to cover the
cost of operation and maintenance of the dredged material
disposal facilities for which such fees have been collected:
Provided, That 1 percent of the total amount of funds
provided for each of the programs, projects or activities
funded under this heading shall not be allocated to a field
operating activity prior to the beginning of the fourth
quarter of the fiscal year and shall be available for use by
the Chief of Engineers to fund such emergency activities as
the Chief of Engineers determines to be necessary and
appropriate, and that the Chief of Engineers shall allocate
during the fourth quarter any remaining funds which have not
been used for emergency activities proportionally in
accordance with the amounts provided for the programs,
projects or activities.
regulatory program
For expenses necessary for administration of laws
pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands,
$190,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2014.
formerly utilized sites remedial action program
For expenses necessary to clean up contamination from sites
in the United States resulting from work performed as part of
the Nation's early atomic energy program, $104,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
flood control and coastal emergencies
For expenses necessary to prepare for flood, hurricane, and
other natural disasters and support emergency operations,
repairs, and other activities in response to such disasters
as authorized by law, $27,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Cleaver
Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 6, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
Page 7, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $3,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to
bolster the Army Corps of Engineers' ability to fight floods and to
quickly begin repair efforts as the floodwaters recede. Last year, my
constituents, as well as thousands of others living along the Missouri
River, experienced a flood of historic proportions and catastrophic
damages. Levees were overtopped or breached, fields were damaged, and
hundreds of farmers, homeowners, and businesses had to evacuate. Over
400,000 acres of farmland were flooded along the river, including
approximately 207,000 in Missouri. Total repair costs from the flood
are estimated to reach $2 billion.
The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account provides funding to
assist in the immediate flood-fighting efforts and the repairs.
Historically, Congress has provided limited funding annually for this
account, mainly relying on supplemental appropriations as emergencies
arise.
Funding for this account the last 2 years has been lower than the 5-
year average appropriation of $55 million. As was the case last year,
after an emergency the Corps must wait on supplemental appropriations
from Congress or they must transfer funds from existing appropriations
for temporary emergency efforts. The Corps did this internal transfer
last year during and after the 2011 flood. However, it takes time to
transfer those funds and temporarily deprives other worthy projects of
funding. This is especially burdensome given the Corps' long
construction backlog of over $62 billion worth of projects.
This amendment is a straight transfer of funds to increase funding
for the Corps' Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account and in
turn reduce funding for the Corps' expenses account. This transfer
would increase the funding to equal the amount that the Senate
Appropriations Committee allocated, bringing total funding for that
account to $30 million for fiscal year 2013.
Mr. Chairman, ensuring adequate annual funding for emergencies will
better prepare the Corps to respond and save time and effort in trying
to reroute funds. And we all know that emergencies will continue to
occur as our climate continues changing and development continues in
flood-prone areas. It is incumbent upon us to provide the people who
respond to these emergencies with the most resources possible. And so
on behalf of the families living along the Missouri River who are in
desperate need of help from this body, I ask for your support by
adopting this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
Let me assure the gentleman that we are very sympathetic to his concern
for fixing the infrastructure that was damaged in last year's flood
event. In fact, we provided $1.7 billion to the Corps of Engineers for
that exact purpose.
The issue the gentleman raises, however, is something that all
Members need to be aware of: based on the definitions in last year's
amendments to the Budget Control Act, disaster relief funds may only be
used in locations declared major disasters under the Stafford Act.
For some agencies, like FEMA, that may make sense. But for the Corps
of Engineers, there are times when that definition is too restrictive.
We all need to be aware of the potential consequences of forcing
regular appropriations to the account for these disaster-related
damages that happen to be in the wrong location according to the Budget
Control Act.
That notwithstanding, the gentleman's amendment would try to address
some of these needs, and I'm pleased to support his amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting Chair. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in support of the amendment, and join with the
comments made by the chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
expenses
For expenses necessary for the supervision and general
administration of the civil works program in the headquarters
of the Corps of Engineers and the offices of the Division
Engineers; and for costs of management and operation of the
Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity, the Institute for
Water Resources, the United States Army Engineer Research and
Development Center, and the United States Army Corps of
Engineers Finance Center allocable to the civil works
program, $177,500,000, to remain available until September
30, 2014, of which not to exceed $5,000 may be used for
official reception and representation purposes and only
during the current fiscal year: Provided, That no part of any
other appropriation provided in title I of this Act shall be
available to fund the civil works activities of the Office of
the Chief of Engineers or the civil works executive direction
and management activities of the division offices: Provided
further, That any Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
appropriation may be used to fund the supervision and general
administration of emergency operations, repairs, and other
activities in response to any flood, hurricane, or other
natural disaster.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 7, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $5,325,000)''.
Page 7, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $150,000)''.
Page 13, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $45,000)''.
Page 16, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,710,000)''.
Page 31, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $12,000,000)''.
Page 47, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,259,510)''.
Page 48, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $882,450)''.
Page 48, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $350,310)''.
Page 48, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $320,370)''.
Page 49, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $42,750)''.
Page 49, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $7,500)''.
[[Page H3371]]
Page 50, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $3,810,840)''.
Page 51, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $102,000)''.
Page 52, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $30,000)''.
Page 56, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $27,036,730)''.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
Mr. DICKS. I object to the suspending of the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk continued to read.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey reserves a point of
order.
The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce the
administrative and salaries and expenses accounts in the underlying
bill by just 3 percent. It is similar to an amendment that I offered to
the Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill just a few weeks
ago.
My message today is the same as it was then: we are in a fiscal
emergency, and it is imperative that we work to get spending under
control here in Washington, D.C.
Over the last 2 years, the House has voted to reduce our own
administrative accounts--our Members representational allowances--by
over 11 percent. As we all know, this has resulted in pay freezes, and
in some cases pay cuts, for a number of our own staff members.
Yet during this same period of time, many agencies have seen
reductions which are much lower than those which we have taken here in
the House.
{time} 0950
Amazingly, some of these Agencies funded under this bill have seen
large increases in their administrative accounts. For example, under
this bill, the Appalachian Regional Commission would receive a 9
percent increase in its administrative account over the FY11 FY13
period. Likewise, the salaries and the expenses account for the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board would see a 21 percent increase. But if
you think those increases are big, think again. This legislation would
provide the Department of Energy's departmental administration account
with a 64 percent increase over 2 years.
Mr. Chairman, I'm not arguing the merits of any of these Agencies.
But during this fiscal crisis, just 3 percent could yield significant
savings--nearly $30 million in the case of Agencies funded under this
bill.
It's time to tighten our belts. I urge support on my amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment, but
certainly understand it and share the passion of the gentleman for
reducing Federal spending, and our bill does plenty of that. As we went
through the process, we did exactly that.
This amendment would cut administrative expenses across the entire
bill. Over many months and public hearings, our committee, in a
bipartisan way, has already considered each administrative account
separately and has made specific cuts while maintaining oversight to
prevent wasteful spending. We've done our job. The gentleman's
amendment cuts all administrative accounts indiscriminately without
regard to where funds are needed and where cuts are possible.
We understand where he is going, but the committee has done its work.
Therefore, I must strongly oppose his amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time. I continue to reserve my point
of order, though.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to express my strong opposition
to the amendment. Some would suggest outrage; I will simply say
opposition.
The fact is, across-the-board cuts to administrative accounts when we
have significant problems as far as the administration of some of these
programs in the Department of Energy is a profound mistake.
What I really want to emphasize at this point to all of our
colleagues in the House is that members of this subcommittee and the
full Appropriations Committee--which approved this bill, the people of
this committee approved this bill--have made value judgments account by
account.
The fact is, for renewable energy--and we will have amendments on
this issue--there is a $428,345,000 reduction in this bill. In the
Office of Science, there is a $72,203,000 reduction. For environmental
clean-up for defense sites, for example, there is an $88,872,000 cut.
These were all discrete decisions made and value judgments.
So I would emphasize to my colleagues that there are significant cuts
and savings in this bill. I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the
amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read.
The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule
XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of new budget
authority in the bill.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order? If not, the Chair will rule.
To amend portions of the bill not yet read pursuant to section
3(j)(1) of House Resolution 5, an amendment must propose only to
transfer appropriations from an object or objects in the bill to a
spending reduction account.
Because the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia proposes
to increase the spending reduction account by more than the amount
being transferred out of other accounts, it may not avail itself of
section 3(j)(1) of House Resolution 5 to address the spending reduction
account.
The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
office of the assistant secretary of the army for civil works
For the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works as authorized by 10 U.S.C. 3016(b)(3),
$5,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2014.
administrative provision
The Revolving Fund, Corps of Engineers, shall be available
during the current fiscal year for purchase (not to exceed
100 for replacement only) and hire of passenger motor
vehicles for the civil works program.
GENERAL PROVISIONS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 101. (a) None of the funds provided in this title
shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a
reprogramming of funds that
(1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or
activity;
(2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
(3) increases funds or personnel for any program, project,
or activity for which funds are denied or restricted by this
Act;
(4) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a
specific program, project, or activity by this Act;
(5) increases funds for any program, project, or activity
by more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; or
(6) reduces funds for any program, project, or activity by
more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less.
(b) Subsection (a)(1) shall not apply to any project or
activity authorized under section 205 of the Flood Control
Act of 1948, section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946,
section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954, section 107 of
the River and Harbor Act of 1960, section 103 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1962, section 111 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1968, section 1135 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986, section 206 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996, or section 204 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992.
(c) The Corps of Engineers shall submit reports on a
quarterly basis to the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Senate detailing all the
funds reprogrammed between programs, projects, activities, or
categories of funding. The first quarterly report shall be
submitted not later than 60 days after the date of enactment
of this Act.
Sec. 102. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used to award or modify any contract that commits
funds beyond the amounts appropriated for that program,
project, or activity that remain unobligated, except that
such amounts may include any funds that have been made
available through reprogramming pursuant to section 101.
[[Page H3372]]
Sec. 103. None of the funds in this Act, or previous Acts,
making funds available for Energy and Water Development,
shall be used to award any continuing contract that commits
additional funding from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund
unless or until such time that a long-term mechanism to
enhance revenues in this Fund sufficient to meet the cost-
sharing authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (Public Law 99 662) is enacted.
Sec. 104. Within 120 days of the date of the Chief of
Engineers Report on a water resource matter, the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) shall submit the report
to the appropriate authorizing and appropriating committees
of the Congress.
Sec. 105. During the fiscal year period covered by this
Act, the Secretary of the Army is authorized to implement
measures recommended in the efficacy study authorized under
section 3061 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007
(121 Stat. 1121) or in interim reports, with such
modifications or emergency measures as the Secretary of the
Army determines to be appropriate, to prevent aquatic
nuisance species from dispersing into the Great Lakes by way
of any hydrologic connection between the Great Lakes and the
Mississippi River Basin.
Sec. 106. The Secretary of the Army may transfer to the
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service
may accept and expend, up to $4,300,000 of funds provided in
this title under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance'' to
mitigate for fisheries lost due to Corps of Engineers
projects.
Sec. 107. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall
be available for use by the Chicago District of the United
States Army Corps of Engineers to fund any travel that is
outside of the District's area of operation unless such
travel is directly project-related or is specifically
requested by a Member of Congress.
Sec. 108. Of the funds provided for ``Olmsted Locks and
Dam, Ohio River, IL & KY'' in the table under the heading
``Corps of Engineers Civil--Construction'' in the report of
the Committee on Appropriations accompanying this Act, not
more than 50 percent may be available for obligation until--
(1) the Corps of Engineers completes a review of the
project, including method of construction;
(2) the Corps of Engineers develops a plan for the
expeditious completion of project construction;
(3) the findings of the review and the project completion
plan have been communicated to the appropriate committees of
the Congress.
Sec. 109. Amounts made available by this Act for the
``Investigations'', ``Construction'', and ``Operation and
Maintenance'' accounts of the Corps of Engineers may not be
used as provided under the heading ``Additional Funding for
Ongoing Work'' in the matter relating to each such account in
the report of the Committee on Appropriations to accompany
this Act until the report required under such heading is
submitted.
Sec. 110. None of the funds made available by this Act or
any subsequent Act making appropriations for Energy and Water
Development may be used by the Corps of Engineers to develop,
adopt, implement, administer, or enforce a change or
supplement to the rule dated November 13, 1986, or guidance
documents dated January 15, 2003, and December 2, 2008,
pertaining to the definition of waters under the jurisdiction
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.).
Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 12, beginning on line 6, strike section 110.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, as the Clerk read, this would strike section
110 of this bill.
This is a legislative rider that is bad policy and does not belong in
an appropriations bill. This rider, 110, permanently blocks the Army
Corps of Engineers from fixing existing policies that are confusing and
inconsistent and not working. It risks great harm to fresh sources of
drinking water, and it jeopardizes flood protection and outdoor
recreation, specifically because section 110 prohibits the Army Corps
from clarifying the limits of Federal and State authority under the
Clean Water Act.
Mr. Chairman, two Supreme Court cases over the last decade addressed
the scope of the Federal Government's authority under the Clean Water
Act. The Court's rulings did not require less regulation and
protections, but urged the Congress and the executive branch to provide
a sound rationale and consistency to clarify the limits of Federal
authority. The Corps and the EPA have now issued draft guidance
clarifying Federal authority that adheres to the Court's rules.
Congress, by contrast, has not.
With this rider, Congress is about to make matters much worse--worse
because blocking completion of the guidance and any subsequent
regulations which the bill's rider would do would be bad for the
public's health, bad for businesses, and bad for farmers. It's
especially bad for 117 million Americans whose drinking water comes
from headwaters and non-perennial streams. Shouldn't we be concerned
about what toxic material is dumped into these streams?
It's bad for American businesses who need certainty. Without updated
guidance, businesses will often not know when they need a Corps' permit
in order to develop land.
{time} 1000
This uncertainty could subject them to civil and criminal liability,
and certainly will cost them extra money.
It's bad for farmers because this rider eliminates the agricultural
exclusion for prior converted cropland that was added to the waters of
the United States rule at the farmers' request.
Section 110 invalidates all rules issued after the rule dated
November 13, 1986, but not until 1993 did the Corps and EPA define the
waters of the U.S. to exclude ``prior converted cropland.''
Claims that Federal guidance and regulations are unnecessary because
of State clean water programs are wrong as well. Thirty-three States
joined a brief in the most recent of the Supreme Court cases urging the
Court to uphold Federal protections for wetlands adjacent to non-
navigable streams. States noted that Federal safeguards were critical
(A) because water flows between States, (B) because maintaining a
Federal floor of pollution control creates parity between States, and
(C) because States have come to rely on Federal protections and would
face serious administrative and financial burdens if they were solely
responsible for these requirements.
Finally, even though the rider may block the guidance clarifying
Federal and State authority, it does not make the Clean Water Act
requirements for a permit go away. States are still required to
implement and enforce the law, and dischargers still must obey it.
Likewise, third parties may still file lawsuits.
The real consequence of this rider will be to frustrate the Federal
Government's efforts to explain where State or Federal authority under
the Clean Water Act ceases to exist. If this rider prevails, more
lawsuits will ensue.
So I urge my colleagues to vote to strike this rider to bring clarity
to a confusing issue.
Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that many of the groups involved have
finally come together and realized that they need clarity on a very
difficult issue. There are times when water goes underground during the
summer and the surface dries up, but that water is still present, and
much of that water is interstate. You need Federal control.
One of the biggest things that I think perhaps the gentleman may not
be aware of is the fact that this rider, if it is passed in this bill,
would eliminate the agricultural exclusion for prior converted
cropland. The fact is that this rider invalidates all rules that were
issued after November 13, 1986, and it wasn't until 1993 that the Corps
and EPA defined the waters of the U.S. to exclude prior converted
cropland. So a lot of the farm community is going to be very upset if
the gentleman's rider is not removed. And the fact that 33 States have
joined a brief asking the Federal Government to do what the EPA and the
Federal Corps of Engineers is doing means that we are going to cause
major problems if this rider is passed in this bill.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REHBERG. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Montana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, you heard it here first. My urban
colleague says the Federal Government wants to control your water on
private property in rural areas like Montana.
The life of a Montana farmer is hard, up before the sun rises,
working all day just to make ends meet. Between the cycle of plowing,
planting, and harvesting, there are tractors to fix, barns to repair,
and products to bring to market. The last thing any Montana farmer
needs is another Federal mandate to
[[Page H3373]]
follow, more red tape to cut through, and more Federal paperwork to
fill out.
This country was founded by farmers. They understood from personal
experience that farming is a full-time job and you can't do it right if
you only do it part of the time. So the Framers of the Constitution set
up a representative government that lets farmers elect men and women to
fight on their behalf so they can go about their business.
The House of Representatives was meant to be the closest to the
people. It's not just our privilege to stand up for our Constitution;
it's our constitutional duty.
The Constitution delegates legislative power to the Congress, but
lately, President Obama has, in too many cases, tried to circumvent the
constitutional separation of powers. Congress managed to prevent the
disastrous cap-and-trade energy tax from becoming law, so President
Obama expanded the definition of a harmful pollutant in the Clean Air
Act to include carbon dioxide, the stuff that we exhale.
Congress blocked the massive legislation landgrabs like the Northern
Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act, so the Obama administration crafts
secret plans to designate 13 million acres as national monuments using
the Antiquities Act. The Antiquities Act, by the way, was passed to
protect archaeological sites.
And now the Obama administration is looking to expand its reach, over
the objections of both the Congress and the Supreme Court, to control
water, all water everywhere.
You know, if there's one resource that's more important to dryland
farmers than time, it's water. And in arid States like Montana, where
we've got plenty of land, there's lots of dirt between light bulbs. The
difference between feast and famine can be a little bit of water. And
now some folks in the Federal Government want to get involved.
It's been a long fight. Let me show you how we got there.
Back in 2001 and 2003, the Supreme Court limited the authority of the
Federal Government to regulate water. Unelected bureaucrats were trying
to control water, all water, including melted snow, mud puddles and
prairie potholes and irrigation ditches. But the Supreme Court said no.
This makes sense. There is a role for the Federal Government. We want
clean water and a safe environment. But living in Montana means you
live off the land. It means you grew up learning how to take care of
your environment. In fact, Montanans were some of the first
conservationists. But the role of government is not unlimited. We don't
need the Federal Government thinking for us, and we don't need the
Federal Government to tell us how to take care of our irrigation
ditches.
The Clean Water Act gives the Federal Government authority to
regulate navigable waters of the United States. President Obama and his
allies in Congress are trying to eliminate the requirement that
waterways be navigable. Simply eliminating that word gives the Federal
Government nearly unlimited power. Fortunately, those legislative
efforts have failed.
So in December 2010, the Corps of Engineers crafted a plan to
identify water subject to jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. The
goal is to significantly expand Federal jurisdiction over water. The
Obama administration and his allies are trying to solve a problem that
does not exist.
Fortunately, the Constitution provides a check to the Obama
administration's power grab. Montana farmers have a safety net--the
House of Representatives. It's our job to fight this battle so that
they don't have to. It's our job to act as a check and balance to over-
reaching executive actions.
That's what this language does. It simply prevents the President from
carrying out his plans. It ensures that when a farmer wakes up before
the sun rises, they don't have to worry about onerous Federal
regulation. They can just go to work on their farm. That's what the
Founding Fathers would have wanted, and that's why I hope you'll join
me in opposing this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. I want to begin by expressing great respect and
affection for my friend from Montana who has just spoken. It was a fine
speech, but it has nothing to do with the issues before us.
What the committee, in this legislation, has done has been to simply
assure that the Corps of Engineers may not put forth guidelines
clarifying the law as it was enunciated by the Supreme Court in the
case that we are discussing in connection with the Clean Water Act.
It does something more. It fixes it so that farmers will lose certain
protections which have been put in for their benefit by the law. And
you're going to find, as my friend from Maryland has so wisely
observed, that you are going to hurt a bunch of American farming public
by denying them a protection which has been given them. Citizens, under
the language of the committee bill, will have no way of knowing what
the law is or how it is interpreted by the committee.
It is not an issue before us today whether or not you agree with the
Clean Water Act. The question is, simply: Is the Corps of Engineers
going to be able to tell people what the law is and how it is to be
interpreted by the Corps and how citizens will then have to behave?
{time} 1010
Under the law, the amendment simply says the Corps may inform people
of what the law, as set forth in the Supreme Court's rulings, means. I
think that is something which is important in terms of seeing to it
that people may go forward with their planning, with economic
development and everything of that sort.
It is not wise to deny citizens this kind of information. It is
extremely unwise to deny business the opportunity to know what it is
they must do to comply with the law as enunciated by the Supreme Court.
The amendment makes great sense. The bill, as written, simply re-fights
an issue that is not before this body at this time. I hate to see the
kind of confusion that is being inflicted upon this body by a simple
misunderstanding of what the law is, what the bill does, and what the
amendment does.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. If you want clarity,
if you want people to know how to comply with the law as set forth by
the Supreme Court, adopt the amendment. If you want confusion and if
you want misfortune to be visited on farmers and the public and
confusion to afflict economic development and business, then support
the bill as it is and oppose the amendment.
There is a tremendous lack of wisdom here in this fight. Let us
understand the issue that plagues us, which is simply whether or not
the Corps of Engineers is going to be able to tell people what the law
is. At issue is not any change in the law. The amendment accepts the
fact that the Supreme Court has made a decision. I happen to strongly
disagree with that decision by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, I am
going to have to wait until some future time to come down and attack
what is clear misbehavior by the Supreme Court. I was on the floor and
had a colloquy with the management of the legislation at the time the
bill was passed, and the Supreme Court has clearly disregarded and
ignored the legislative history and, worse than that, the clear
language of the bill. That issue is not before us today.
What is before us today is simply: Are the Corps of Engineers and the
U.S. Government going to be able to tell the people what the law is as
set forth by the Supreme Court?
To say anything else about this legislation is either to be misled or
to mislead. I would beg my colleagues to vote in favor of the
intelligent approach of seeing to it that we are going to allow people
to know what the law is and allow the Corps of Engineers to set out
what the law is for the benefit of business, industry, and people.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Moran-Dingell amendment which
will protect not only the Clean Water Act but also the power and
integrity of the United States Congress.
When the Clean Water Act was passed, I stood on the floor of this
House as one of its
[[Page H3374]]
authors and explained the intent of the Conference Report on the Clean
Water Act in a colloquy with Representative Jim Wright of Texas, who
was managing the bill. I said, `'the conference bill defines the term
`navigable waters' broadly for water quality purposes. It means all
`the waters of the United States' in a geographical sense. It does not
mean the `navigable waters of the United States' in the technical sense
as we sometimes see in some laws.''
In 2006, the Supreme Court significantly restricted the original
Congressional intent of the Federal government's authority under the
Clean Water Act. The Supreme Court completely ignored Congress' intent
to provide a broader definition of ``U.S. waters'' and instead upended
35 years of precedence simply because they refused to properly review
the legislative history of laws made on this floor by those managing
the bill.
Because of the Supreme Court's misguided decision, the Army Corps of
Engineers is working on new guidelines that will take into account the
decision of the Court and define what their new jurisdiction will be
under the Clean Water Act. This is not a massive expansion of power by
the Corps as some would have the House believe. This is simply an
honest attempt to comply with the Supreme Court's decision.
By preventing the Corps from spending any funds to implement these
new guidelines, this House would be casting a dark pall of uncertainty
over the country. If someone wants to build a home or new business near
a wetland or other body of water, do they need to consult with the Army
Corps of Engineers before doing so? The language in this bill would not
answer that question and would lead to more costs and confusion to that
homeowner or businessperson in legal and court fees. The language in
this bill would lead to more court battles and create a wonderful mess
that would lead to lawyers making plenty of money.
I ask my colleagues to not let the Supreme Court to blatantly ignore
established Congressional intent and to instead allow the Army Corps of
Engineers to do the work we told them to do and to implement new
guidelines conforming to the court's decision.
Please vote for the Moran-Dingell Amendment.
Mr. GIBBS. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GIBBS. I rise today in strong opposition to this amendment.
My friends on the other side of the aisle are absolutely right in
that, currently, there is an assault going on with regard to the Clean
Water Act; but it is not by us, rather by this administration. We are
not trying to roll back the Clean Water Act but, instead, allow it to
work as it was written.
This administration is currently trying to circumvent congressional
intent and expand the scope of the law beyond its drafted words. This
guidance would substantially change the Agency's policy on waters
subject to the jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, undermine the
regulatory community's rights and obligations under the Clean Water
Act, and erode the Federal-State partnership that has long existed
between the States and the Federal Government in implementing the Clean
Water Act.
By developing this guidance, the Agencies have ignored calls from
State agencies and environmental groups, among others, to proceed
through the normal rulemaking procedures; and they have avoided
consulting with the States, which are supposed to be the agencies
partnering in and implementing the Clean Water Act. The agencies cannot
circumvent the Administrative Procedure Act through this guidance or
change the scope and meaning of the Clean Water Act or the statute's
implementing regulations.
If the administration and the Members on the other side of the aisle
seek statutory changes in the Clean Water Act, then a proposal must be
submitted here in Congress for legislative action, and we should have a
healthy debate. Until that time, we must stop this current process.
Also, I would like to add to the gentleman's earlier comments in that
I think the intent of the Clean Water Act passed constitutional muster
because of the word ``navigable'' in the Interstate Commerce Clause.
This guidance put out essentially circumvents the word ``navigable,''
so I have to raise a question of the constitutionality of this type of
amendment.
I urge strong opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maryland is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my colleague Mr.
Moran's amendment to strike this rider in the fiscal year 2013 Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Act. For 40 years, the Clean Water
Act has helped remove pollution from our drinking water and protect our
precious natural resources.
The act regulates the discharge of pollution into navigable waters;
but put simply, it makes sure that a glass of water you get from the
tap or the fish you catch in any fishing hole or river isn't
contaminated by pollutants. Now, some of my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle forget that, before the Clean Water Act was passed,
rivers caught on fire; oil spills in inland waters were rampant; and
few communities had modern wastewater treatment facilities.
The ill-conceived rider in this bill would have a severe impact on my
home State of Maryland. In fact, the EPA estimates that 55 percent of
the streams in Maryland either do not flow year-round or are ``first
order'' headwater streams. These are waters most vulnerable to
pollution or destruction if the Army Corps and EPA are not able to
adopt policies to restore the longstanding protections for these
waters. Without these protections, sewage and industrial waste
discharges, oil spills and completely filling in streams for
development may not be subject to Federal law even when streams provide
drinking water, as they do in the Fourth Congressional District of
Maryland.
The EPA says that 3,990,016 people in Maryland receive some of their
drinking water from areas containing these smaller streams. In
Montgomery County alone, 1,846,500 residents are at risk of having
their drinking water polluted. These residents use surface water
supplied by public drinking water systems that rely on smaller streams
that are at risk of losing clean water protections. Also, many waters
in Maryland, from small streams to the Chesapeake Bay, are interstate
waters. Without strong Federal safeguards for waters of the United
States, those States that want to or are able to take State-level steps
to protect waters will be unsuccessful.
Even with the Clean Water Act, the Potomac River--I live on the banks
of the Potomac River--is listed as the most endangered river by the
group American Rivers as part of their America's Most Endangered Rivers
of 2012. The river receives this inauspicious award because it's
polluted by agriculture runoff, sewage runoff from roadways and from
enough pharmaceuticals that male fish have been caught with female
characteristics. The Anacostia River, which also flows through my
district, is polluted by trash, sewage, and other contaminants. A
cleanup of the Anacostia is slowly taking place due in no small part to
the guidance provided under the Clean Water Act. Urban rivers like the
Potomac and Anacostia are affected by runoff from streets and parking
structures.
I want to pause here for a minute because all of us here in this
Capitol receive our water, our tap water and our drinking water, from
those waters that I am talking about, from the Anacostia and the
Potomac. So keep that in mind, Members of Congress, when you're
drinking a glass of water.
It's one of the many reasons that I favor public transportation,
transit-oriented development, and bike riding. Our air and water are
protected when we make smart transportation decisions, and I have to
say that we haven't made a single smart transportation and jobs
decision in this Congress since the Republicans took over. This is why
I support a bipartisan and Senate-passed MAP 21 and hope that the
conferees agree to a report that reflects the priorities in that bill,
because that's about protecting our drinking water.
So let's be clear about what's at stake. The Clean Water Act protects
almost 60 percent of U.S. streams, and that's why 33 States joined a
brief in the most recent Supreme Court case on the issue urging the
Court to uphold Federal protections for wetlands adjacent to non-
navigable tributaries.
[[Page H3375]]
{time} 1020
These States noted that Federal safeguards were critical because
water flows between States, because maintaining a Federal floor of
pollution control creates parity among States, and because States have
come to rely on Federal protections and would face significant
administrative and financial burdens if they were solely responsible
for these requirements. Now the success of the Clean Water Act is being
threatened by a dirty-water rider attached to the FY 2013 Energy and
Water appropriations bill.
I hope you'll join with me and millions of people across the country
to stand up for clean water, for safe drinking water, for the health of
fishermen, and for fish and wildlife. Future generations will not
remember the industries we've made slightly wealthier by rolling back
this bipartisan passed bill, but our future generations will know that
we are the reason their drinking water is making them sick.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Moran-Dingell amendment and to
strike this dangerous and reckless rider.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chair, I have to rise in strong opposition to my
friend's amendment.
Today, the EPA and the Corps of Engineers are writing guidance in
order to dramatically expand the reach of the Clean Water Act and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The EPA and Corps' understanding
of waters of the United States would grow to encompass--in my rural
district and a lot of rural districts all over this country--dry
ditches, culverts, and--who knows--swimming pools and snow, as well.
This guidance is called ``Identification of Waters Protected by the
Clean Water Act,'' and it's clear that the draft guidance, which has
already been published, says it is not a rule and it is not binding.
But let me tell you what's happened in my congressional district.
Number one, this guidance is actually causing already the Corps of
Engineers to fine a couple of people in my congressional district who
supposedly have dry ditches on their property, and they are about 10
different streams removed from the Mississippi River, perhaps. Only
when it rains does it stay wet for a day. These people are being told
that they're going to have to pay hefty fines unless they stop the
development of this particular area on their land. This is absolutely
the craziest thing I've ever heard. Nobody is talking about impacting
your clean water. This is out in the country. This is in rural areas.
This is where there hasn't been a stream running in 100 years. Why that
would be called a navigable water is beyond me.
The language included in the underlying bill is just simply going to
stop the Corps, along with the EPA, from expanding their regulatory
reach. And as I said, it's going to drastically be expanded to include
culverts, dry ditches, and the rain falling on our fields. God knows
there's going to be a mud puddle there, and it's suddenly going to
become a navigable water because you might be able to put somebody with
an inner tube in there in the puddle in the yard to be able to swim
until it dries up.
Come on. Let's use sound science. Let's use some common sense. Let's
follow proper rulemaking. The last thing we need to do is to continue
to increase the power of the Federal Government. And this amendment
under consideration--and I love my colleagues who are offering it--
would further empower the regulatory agencies, and it would endanger
more than anything else our private property rights.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support private property rights
and join me in demanding transparency and accountability of our
regulatory agencies. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat this
amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mr. Moran's
amendment and would point out that I think the gentleman from Michigan
in his earlier remarks hit the nail on the head. This is an issue of
clarity versus confusion.
The fact is we have become the ``Congress of Confusion.'' We are
charged with running a Nation of 300 million people with domestic and
international responsibilities. We have now confused the physician
community of the United States more than 17 times--sometimes at a 2-
week interval--as to what the reimbursements are going to be under the
Medicare program. We have people who have suffered loss of life,
significant property damage, and dislocation through floods in our
Nation. We are unable as an institution to resolve our differences on
flood insurance and have continued it--if I am correct--at least 11
times. The fact is we have an infrastructure, as far as our highways
and bridges, that is crumbling. We have now eight or nine times
continued that because we cannot make a decision, and we continue to
confuse the States, contractors, and our communities as to what the
policy of the United States Government is going to be. And depending on
what year you died, the last four years--including 2012--this Nation
has had three different estate-tax laws, and the current one expires at
the end of this year, leading to confusion and the hiring of numerous
accountants, insurance agents, and attorneys, all of whom I love.
Why confuse this Nation more by not adopting the clarity of the Moran
amendment? There is no question that the two Supreme Court decisions
have significantly confused this issue and created uncertainty as to
the scope of the Clean Water Act. During multiple hearings before the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, witness after witness
spoke of how these cases have blurred the lines on what the waters
subject to Federal protection are.
The reason in short is because in neither case could the majority of
Supreme Court justices agree on what was the appropriate test for
determining the scope of Federal protections based on their reading of
the term ``navigable.'' No majority or the court could agree what
navigable means. In fact, in one of the cases the level of confusion on
the court is reflected in that there are five separate opinions filed
in the case with no opinion having more than four supporters on the
Supreme Court of the United States.
The resulting confusion in interpreting the Clean Water Act is
apparent to both the regulated community and regulators. The fact is,
the industry has asked for clarification of this confusion through
agency rulemaking. The gentlewoman mentioned that we need a rule in
this. We do need a clarified rule. However, this legislative rider that
is in the bill proposes the status quo of confusion and that that is
acceptable. It will only result in increased implementation costs to
the Federal Government, to the States, and to the regulated community.
It will increase delays in the implementation of important public works
projects and protracted litigation on the disparity of this language.
We need to adopt Mr. Moran's amendment to ensure that we have
clarity. We should be taking actions to address the legitimate concerns
that have been expressed. But the fact is this is an issue that
Congress and the administration needs to address in the authorizing
process to clarify it. This is not an issue that should be continued in
confusion and perpetuity through the appropriations process.
Again, I strongly support the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and
urge my colleagues to support a clarification of the Clean Water Act.
Mr. Chairman, Republican administrators of the EPA--from William
Reilly to Russell Train--have all expressed support for protecting our
streams, rivers, wetlands, lakes, and other waters of the United States
from pollution and from destruction. The rider in this bill will
perpetuate the
[[Page H3376]]
current confusing and cumbersome bureaucratic situation.
{time} 1030
I would suggest it's time to take a step forward, not take a step
backward, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the rider and to support
the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. I received a letter from the American Fisheries Society,
the American Fly Fishing Trade Association, the Sportfishing
Association, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. I think these are very
important groups. As a westerner, I pay attention to these people. It
says:
March 30, 2012.
Dear Representative: As sportsman-conservation
organizations representing millions of hunters, boaters, and
anglers nationwide, we ask you to oppose any legislation that
would block the administration's very deliberate and vital
action to clarify and restore long-standing Clean Water Act
protections for streams and wetlands across the country. We
reaffirm our support for Clean Water Act guidance currently
being reviewed and finalized in an interagency process
coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Sportsmen rely on clean water to ensure the opportunity to
enjoy hunting, angling, and other outdoor-based recreation
(and business) in the great outdoors. When wetlands are
drained and filled and streams are polluted, sportsmen are
often the first to be directly impacted. Consequently,
hunters, boaters, and anglers have consistently advocated for
conserving our nation's waters.
Since 2001, U.S. Supreme Court decisions in SWANCC (2001)
and Rapanos (2006), along with 2003 and 2008 agency guidance
that is inconsistent with those decisions and the related
science, have combined to erode long-standing Clean Water Act
safeguards for headwater streams and critical wetlands.
Headwater and intermittently flowing streams comprise 59
percent of all stream miles in the continental United States,
and are particularly vulnerable under the decisions and
existing agency guidance. At-risk wetlands and tributaries
provide clean water for iconic systems such as the
Mississippi River Delta and the Chesapeake Bay. They recharge
aquifers like the Ogallala, help retain floodwaters in areas
such as the Prairie Pothole region and Missouri River Basin,
and provide important fish and wildlife habitat throughout
the nation. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), prairie pothole wetlands in the northern Great Plains,
together with similar wetlands in southern Canada, produce 50
to 70 percent of all North American ducks. However, in its
most recent report on the status of wetlands nationwide, the
FWS found the rate of wetland loss jumped 140 percent between
2004 and 2009. As these waters are polluted and diminished,
their ecological, public health, and recreational benefits
are lost, as well.
As we all work to create jobs and support economic
recovery, we should nurture rather than neglect the economic
benefits of hunting, angling, and other outdoor recreation.
Hunting, boating, and angling have a tremendously positive
impact on the nation's economy, including in rural
communities, and support millions of jobs across the country.
Consider the following:
Using data from the FWS, the American Sportfishing
Association estimates angling generates $125 billion in
annual economic activity and supports more than 1 million
jobs.
Using similar information, the Congressional Sportsmen's
Foundation estimates hunters contribute nearly $25 billion to
the economy, which supports 600,000 jobs.
Data from the National Marine Manufacturers Association
indicates that recreational boating contributes over $41
billion and 337,000 jobs to the U.S. economy.
The FWS reports duck hunting alone generates $2.3 billion for
the economy every year and supports 27,000 private sector
jobs.
In order to effectively safeguard key components of our
economy, the sports and traditions that millions of Americas
enjoy, and the health and integrity of some of our most
important fish and wildlife resources, it is essential to act
now to restore lost Clean Water Act protections consistent
with existing law and science.
The Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) proposed new guidance last spring for
determining Clean Water Act jurisdiction. The draft guidance
is science-based and clearly respects the Supreme Court's
decisions. Over the course of three months last summer, the
agencies conducted an almost unprecedented public engagement
process for a guidance document. More than 200,000 Americans
commented and EPA has reported that the clear majority of
those comments support the proposed guidance. During this
process, more than 250 hunting, angling, and conservation
groups from 28 states also weighed in backing the guidance
and subsequent rulemaking.
To complete this process the guidance must be finalized as
a first step in affirming longstanding clean water
protections for many wetlands and streams. This guidance
importantly maintains existing exemptions for normal
agricultural activity. At the same time, it will provide
increased clarity and consistency that is badly needed by
land owners, developers, conservationists, and state and
federal agencies alike. We urge you to support--and not
oppose--this important first step.
As a follow-up to final guidance, we also support agency
action to further clarify and strengthen the regulatory
definition of ``waters of the United States.'' There is
widespread agreement among groups across the spectrum about
the inherent value of rulemaking to address critical aspects
of this issue. In closing, we urge you to support--and not
oppose--the important and careful steps being taken by the
administration to clarify and affirm long-standing
protections for wetlands and streams across the United
States.
Respectfully,
Gus Rassam, Executive Director, American Fisheries
Society; Randi Swisher, President, American Fly Fishing
Trade Association; Gordon Robertson, Vice President,
Government Affairs, American Sportfishing Association;
Jim Akenson, Executive Director, Backcountry Hunters
and Anglers; Bruce Akin, Chief Executive Officer, BASS,
LLC.; Jim Martin, Conservation Director, Berkley
Conservation Institute; Rob Olson, President, Delta
Waterfowl; David Hoskins, Executive Director, Izaak
Walton League of America; Thom Dammrich, President,
National Marine Manufacturers Association; Larry
Schweiger, President and CEO, National Wildlife
Federation; Paul Krausman, CWD, President, The Wildlife
Society; Whit Fosburgh, President and CEO, Theodore
Roosevelt Conservation Partnership; Chris Wood,
President, Trout Unlimited; Steve Williams, President,
Wildlife Management Institute.
So that's why we must today enact the Moran amendment that takes out
the language unfortunately added in full committee on this subject. It
is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do. From an
environmental perspective and from a hunter, fisherman, outdoor
recreational perspective, it's necessary to protect our future.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. I move to strike the last world.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the chairman for his recognition. I don't have
the letter to read, but listen, the only argument that's being made
here that makes any sense is we have got to bring clarity to this
issue. We have got to bring clarity to the confusion of this issue.
Well, I will tell you that a hanging is clarity, but it's not
necessarily the right option. That's essentially what we're doing here.
We're giving control of all these waters that have traditionally been
in the control of the States to the Federal Government. And I will tell
you, we will have an opportunity to debate this same issue again on the
Interior bill dealing with the EPA. This deals with the Army Corps of
Engineers.
The fact is is that you don't need this to clarify this, the policies
proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers. You can clarify it by
legislatively defining what ``navigable'' means. If the Supreme Court
has a problem trying to decide what ``navigable'' means, then let's
address that so we know what we intend by that.
The argument is made repeatedly by some of those that have supported
this amendment, whether you are from Virginia or Maryland, and I will
tell you, if you want in Virginia or Maryland or Washington or
Michigan, the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA to control every drop
of water that falls on your State, I'll help you do it. Let's write
legislation to do that so that you guys can have the clarity of the EPA
and the Army Corps of Engineers. But in western States, we actually
protect those waters by State law. What you are trying to do is exempt
State law or override State law and have the Federal Government take
control of these. That's just flat wrong.
If you don't think Virginia protects its headwaters enough, then put
a bill in to allow the EPA and the Army Corps to control every drop of
water that falls in the State of Virginia. You don't need this to bring
clarity to this, and the States are doing a good job that do State
regulations of headwaters.
Mr. MORAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. MORAN. I would like to ask the gentleman what we do about waters
that are interstate, they flow down.
[[Page H3377]]
Mr. SIMPSON. Well, let me answer that question for you.
Mr. MORAN. Yes, please.
Mr. SIMPSON. If there are waters that the State is not regulating and
they will eventually flow into navigable waters, and the only way to
control the pollution in those navigable waters--the State is going to
ultimately start controlling those headwaters if they're not doing
their jobs.
You seem to think that States have no ability to control the State
waters that are under State control. They do have the ability to
control those State waters, and they do a good job of it in most
States. I'm not sure about Virginia. I haven't followed Virginia.
Mr. MORAN. But I suggest to the gentleman, they use the Federal
definition in order to enforce the quality of the water coming from
other States. That's the problem.
Mr. SIMPSON. The point is that they become navigable waters at some
point. If they are being polluted by waters that are controlled by the
States, eventually the State is going to have to say, You know what, we
have got to get control of this; otherwise, we're going to have
problems downstream.
Mr. MORAN. How do they control water from another State?
Mr. SIMPSON. You seem to think that the only way to address this
problem is to have a Federal bureaucracy. You know what, we could bring
clarity to all of our problems by just eliminating the States. Why have
States? Why not have everything under Federal control? That makes
sense, because everything goes from State to State eventually. It makes
no sense to me.
This does not bring clarity to the situation and it does not help in
the regulation of our Clean Water Act. This does not make the waters of
the United States cleaner. All it does is give more authority to the
Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA.
{time} 1040
If you want to bring charity, then bring a bill down here to define
what navigable means. And you can do that. As I said, a hanging is
clarity--not necessarily the best outcome.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 111. As of the date of enactment of this Act and
thereafter, the Secretary of the Army shall not promulgate or
enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from
possessing a firearm, including an assembled or functional
firearm, at a water resources development project covered
under section 327.0 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations
(as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act), if--
(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from
possessing the firearm; and
(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the
law of the State in which the water resources development
project is located.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Central Utah Project
central utah project completion account
For carrying out activities authorized by the Central Utah
Project Completion Act, $19,700,000, to remain available
until expended, of which $1,200,000 shall be deposited into
the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account for
use by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation
Commission. In addition, for necessary expenses incurred in
carrying out related responsibilities of the Secretary of the
Interior, $1,300,000.
For fiscal year 2013, the Commission may use an amount not
to exceed $1,500,000 for administrative expenses.
Bureau of Reclamation
The following appropriations shall be expended to execute
authorized functions of the Bureau of Reclamation:
water and related resources
(including transfers of funds)
For management, development, and restoration of water and
related natural resources and for related activities,
including the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of
reclamation and other facilities, participation in fulfilling
related Federal responsibilities to Native Americans, and
related grants to, and cooperative and other agreements with,
State and local governments, federally recognized Indian
tribes, and others, $833,635,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $29,000 shall be available for transfer to
the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and $6,985,000 shall be
available for transfer to the Lower Colorado River Basin
Development Fund; of which such amounts as may be necessary
may be advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund: Provided,
That such transfers may be increased or decreased within the
overall appropriation under this heading: Provided further,
That of the total appropriated, the amount for program
activities that can be financed by the Reclamation Fund or
the Bureau of Reclamation special fee account established by
16 U.S.C. 6806 shall be derived from that Fund or account:
Provided further, That funds contributed under 43 U.S.C. 395
are available until expended for the purposes for which
contributed: Provided further, That funds advanced under 43
U.S.C. 397a shall be credited to this account and are
available until expended for the same purposes as the sums
appropriated under this heading: Provided further, That of
the amounts provided herein, funds may be used for high
priority projects which shall be carried out by the Youth
Conservation Corps, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1706.
central valley project restoration fund
For carrying out the programs, projects, plans, habitat
restoration, improvement, and acquisition provisions of the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act, $39,883,000, to be
derived from such sums as may be collected in the Central
Valley Project Restoration Fund pursuant to sections 3407(d),
3404(c)(3), and 3405(f) of Public Law 102 575, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That the Bureau of
Reclamation is directed to assess and collect the full amount
of the additional mitigation and restoration payments
authorized by section 3407(d) of Public Law 102 575: Provided
further, That none of the funds made available under this
heading may be used for the acquisition or leasing of water
for in-stream purposes if the water is already committed to
in-stream purposes by a court adopted decree or order.
california bay-delta restoration
(including transfers of funds)
For carrying out activities authorized by the Water Supply,
Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act, consistent
with plans to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior,
$36,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which
such amounts as may be necessary to carry out such activities
may be transferred to appropriate accounts of other
participating Federal agencies to carry out authorized
purposes: Provided, That funds appropriated herein may be
used for the Federal share of the costs of CALFED Program
management: Provided further, That the use of any funds
provided to the California Bay-Delta Authority for program-
wide management and oversight activities shall be subject to
the approval of the Secretary of the Interior: Provided
further, That CALFED implementation shall be carried out in a
balanced manner with clear performance measures demonstrating
concurrent progress in achieving the goals and objectives of
the Program.
policy and administration
For necessary expenses of policy, administration, and
related functions in the Office of the Commissioner, the
Denver office, and offices in the five regions of the Bureau
of Reclamation, to remain available until September 30, 2014,
$57,000,000, to be derived from the Reclamation Fund and be
nonreimbursable as provided in 43 U.S.C. 377: Provided, That
no part of any other appropriation in this Act shall be
available for activities or functions budgeted as policy and
administration expenses.
administrative provision
Appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation shall be
available for purchase of not to exceed five passenger motor
vehicles, which are for replacement only.
GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Sec. 201. (a) None of the funds provided in this title
shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a
reprogramming of funds that--
(1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or
activity;
(2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
(3) increases funds for any program, project, or activity
for which funds have been denied or restricted by this Act;
(4) restarts or resumes any program, project or activity
for which funds are not provided in this Act, unless prior
approval is received from the Committees on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and the Senate;
(5) transfers funds in excess of the following limits--
(A) 15 percent for any program, project or activity for
which $2,000,000 or more is available at the beginning of the
fiscal year; or
(B) $300,000 for any program, project or activity for which
less than $2,000,000 is available at the beginning of the
fiscal year;
(6) transfers more than $500,000 from either the Facilities
Operation, Maintenance, and Rehabilitation category or the
Resources
[[Page H3378]]
Management and Development category to any program, project,
or activity in the other category; or
(7) transfers, when necessary to discharge legal
obligations of the Bureau of Reclamation, more than
$5,000,000 to provide adequate funds for settled contractor
claims, increased contractor earnings due to accelerated
rates of operations, and real estate deficiency judgments.
(b) Subsection (a)(5) shall not apply to any transfer of
funds within the Facilities Operation, Maintenance, and
Rehabilitation category.
(c) For purposes of this section, the term ``transfer''
means any movement of funds into or out of a program,
project, or activity.
(d) The Bureau of Reclamation shall submit reports on a
quarterly basis to the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Senate detailing all the
funds reprogrammed between programs, projects, activities, or
categories of funding. The first quarterly report shall be
submitted not later than 60 days after the date of enactment
of this Act.
Sec. 202. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act may be used to determine the final
point of discharge for the interceptor drain for the San Luis
Unit until development by the Secretary of the Interior and
the State of California of a plan, which shall conform to the
water quality standards of the State of California as
approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, to minimize any detrimental effect of the San Luis
drainage waters.
(b) The costs of the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program
and the costs of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program
shall be classified by the Secretary of the Interior as
reimbursable or nonreimbursable and collected until fully
repaid pursuant to the ``Cleanup Program-Alternative
Repayment Plan'' and the ``SJVDP-Alternative Repayment Plan''
described in the report entitled ``Repayment Report,
Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program and San Joaquin Valley
Drainage Program, February 1995'', prepared by the Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Any future
obligations of funds by the United States relating to, or
providing for, drainage service or drainage studies for the
San Luis Unit shall be fully reimbursable by San Luis Unit
beneficiaries of such service or studies pursuant to Federal
reclamation law.
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
ENERGY PROGRAMS
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(including rescission of funds)
For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment,
and other expenses necessary for energy efficiency and
renewable energy activities in carrying out the purposes of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion, $1,450,960,000 to
remain available until expended: Provided, That of such
amount, $115,000,000 shall be available until September 30,
2014, for program direction: Provided further, That for the
purposes of allocating weatherization assistance funds to
States and tribes during fiscal year 2013, the Secretary of
Energy may waive the allocation formula established pursuant
to section 414(a) of the Energy Conservation and Production
Act (42 U.S.C. 6864(a)): Provided further, That of the
unobligated balances from prior year appropriations available
under this heading, $69,667,000 is hereby permanently
rescinded: Provided further, That no amounts may be rescinded
from amounts that were designated by the Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to the Concurrent Resolution
on the Budget or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 20, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Page 28, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. I rise today to offer an amendment that takes another
step toward restoring energy independence for America and new jobs for
Americans. My amendment shifts an additional $10 million for energy
efficiency and renewable energy development from departmental
administrative accounts. My goal is to better support a diversified
energy portfolio and restore continental energy security.
American security and competitiveness hinge on affordable energy for
our businesses and families, and our energy future depends on
innovation. Fossil fuels continue to provide the bulk of our energy
needs, and those accounts are left intact in this bill. But we all
should know that a diversified energy portfolio protects America from
the instability of a single source of energy dependence.
Our future security depends on diversified energy research and
development that provides significant return on investment both
financially and in technological advancement and the jobs that go with
it. We must ensure that American innovators are on a level playing
field with competitors across the globe, including China, and even
Russia, and other nations looking for a competitive edge.
For years, the United States has been the global leader in these
technologies, but we now are losing edge. Investment in energy
efficiency and renewable energy technologies are absolutely essential
in securing America's future.
Now, I understand the difficulty in drafting this bill, given the
302(b) allocation and the cuts for energy and water that the
subcommittee endured. And I appreciate Chairman Frelinghuysen and
Ranking Member Visclosky's dedication to making difficult choices in a
tight budget climate. Yet for fiscal 2013, critical energy research
accounts have been drastically reduced to $1.38 billion that actually
exacted a $428 million cut below fiscal year 2012.
Compared to last year, for example, solar energy was cut nearly in
half--to $155 million--and wind energy, the fastest energy sector
growing globally, was cut by one-quarter, to $70 million for R&D. Other
programs like geothermal, water power, and building energy technologies
received similar large cuts.
Last year, this body came together in a bipartisan fashion to support
a modest increase in energy efficiency and renewable energy
technologies; and faced with further cuts this year, I ask my
colleagues to reaffirm that commitment to a diversified energy policy
and lead our country, and indeed the world, toward a new energy age. In
fact, this amendment increases funds for the renewable portion of our
energy portfolio while maintaining the proposed increases for fossil
fuel development. And from a budgetary and accounting standpoint, my
amendment actually decreases outlays for fiscal year 2013.
Let me add, this $10 million transfer we are proposing represents
less than
1/20th of the $230 million administrative budget of the Department of
Energy. This is a prudent adjustment to our energy policy strategy. It
is forward looking. It makes sense from a budgetary standpoint. It will
spur new job creation. And I urge my colleagues' support.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. I
appreciate my colleague's passion for solar energy. She has been a
tireless supporter of American innovation in this energy and
technological area. I also have the pleasure of serving with her on the
Defense Appropriations Committee, and she's been an innovator and
promoter of responsible energy policy with the Department of Defense as
well.
But within tight budgets, we need to focus funding on our highest
priorities, which is what we've done in our Energy and Water bill. To
make room for our national security and infrastructure responsibility,
our bill cuts energy efficiency and renewable energy by $428 million
and reprioritizes funds within the program to support American
manufacturing and address rising gas prices. The focus is on jobs, the
economy, and American manufacturing.
Our bill also preserves $155 million for solar energy research that
continues to advance American manufacturing and helps our companies
compete globally. While I support activities that help American
manufacturers compete, we cannot afford to add unnecessary funds to
solar energy by cutting other important priorities.
Indeed, the amendment would cut departmental administration, a cut
that we all know simply cannot be sustained in the final appropriation
without jeopardizing the Department of Energy's ability to run and
oversee their operation. They have enough management problems now.
Reducing that management amount would make it difficult for them to run
and oversee the problems that they really need to oversee.
So this amendment uses money we simply do not have. It has perhaps
the
[[Page H3379]]
effect of crippling management by the Department. We need to live
within our means. And I, regretfully, oppose the gentlewoman's
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
{time} 1050
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
gentlewoman's amendment. There is $10 million contained in her
amendment. That is a significant sum of money. When compared, however,
to current year level spending for the renewable accounts of $1.825
billion, and as the chairman rightfully pointed out, a reduction of
$428 million from that account, the gentlewoman's amendment is as much
a statement of Congress as it is a monetary initiative. That is, we
need to make an investment in our energy future as well as our economic
future.
Renewable energy must be a part of that future, and the vast majority
of industries in our country throughout our history have received
substantial support from the government to become established and to be
part of this great Nation.
This amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio takes a very
small, but very positive, step towards making that investment, and I do
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment; and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio will
be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hultgren
Mr. HULTGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 20, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $30,000,000)''.
Page 26, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $15,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HULTGREN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would transfer $15 million
from the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy research program to the
Office of Science. It would also reduce the EERE account by an
additional $15 million, which could be put towards deficit reduction.
The Obama administration has consistently prioritized industrial
policy, under the guise of applied science, at the cost of reduced
support for our Nation's critical basic science research and our
national labs.
EERE's Advanced Manufacturing Office is $35 million above current
fiscal year 2012 levels. EERE's water technologies program is $25
million above the President's budget request. EERE's vehicle
technologies program is $42 million above where it was just last year.
EERE's solar technology program receives $155 million, despite billions
of dollars of recent loan guarantees to solar companies and several
high-profile industry failures.
This amendment would remove $15 million from the EERE account, which
is spent on subsidizing solar power and wind energy, and move it back
to the Office of Science, where I would hope report language could
specifically target it for the high-energy physics program which is
critical to our long-term economic success and scientific leadership.
At this time, I yield to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs.
Noem).
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Illinois for yielding to me, and I appreciate working with him on this
important amendment.
This amendment would increase funding for the Office of Science by
$15 million while cutting an additional $15 million from the underlying
bill.
Mr. Chair, the field of high-energy physics is becoming increasingly
competitive; and without critical deep underground research spaces, we
will continue to put our historic leadership in this area at risk,
while continuing to send our best and brightest overseas to conduct
their research.
But we can compete. Just this week in my State of South Dakota, the
Sanford Underground Research Facility dedicated the Davis campus--4,850
feet underground. Later this year, this campus is scheduled to hold a
dark matter detector that after only 4 days of operation stands to add
more to our knowledge than all previous dark matter research
experiments. We're not talking about subsidies and giveaways for ideas
that are years or decades down the road. This is cutting-edge science
that's within our grasp.
We need to make tough choices in our current budget situation, but we
also need to recognize the role that U.S. research plays in our ability
to compete and to innovate. So I urge my colleagues to support our
ability to lead the world in underground science in a fiscally
responsible way, and I urge support of this amendment.
Mr. HULTGREN. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this
amendment. It does make sense. It's a commitment to basic scientific
research and fiscal accountability, and I urge support of the
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise very reluctantly to oppose
the amendment. I do recognize the passion of the Members of Congress
from Illinois and South Dakota who have spoken, and I may say
repeatedly spoken and advocated to me over the last couple of months on
behalf of the high-energy physics program and national laboratories in
their congressional districts and, in fact, all relevant national
laboratories that play a critical role in maintaining our Nation's
scientific leadership and competitiveness. So I recognize their
advocacy, I appreciate it, and I certainly will be working with them to
do whatever we can to be of assistance.
We tried our very best in our bill to help those and all of the
Department's remarkable national laboratories, but our constraints did
not afford us the luxury of bringing more money to the table in many
cases. Many labs wanted money, and these are remarkable labs, and they
are deserving as well.
We did what we could for high-energy physics by shifting $16 million
into project engineering and design for the Long Baseline neutrino
experiment. This allows the Department to move quickly in choosing a
path forward for the program.
We also ensured that the Homestake mine, which is a remarkable mine
and a remarkable structure and a national asset, has sufficient minimal
funding to operate while that path forward is yet to be determined.
If more funding were available, we certainly would have brought more
resources to bear. Unfortunately, the amendment finds resources by
cutting a program--and we discussed this earlier--that has already been
reduced by $428 million. That's a 24 percent reduction from fiscal year
2012 and a 40 percent reduction below 2010.
I recognize--the committee recognizes--the importance of these
programs, and I promise we'll work with our colleagues as we move
forward in the appropriations process to be supportive and helpful, but
I must reluctantly oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I also would rise in reluctant
opposition to the gentleman's amendment. As a resident of the
neighboring State, I realize all of the great scientific research that
is done in the State of Illinois alone at some of our wonderful Federal
facilities. There is no question that we need to invest in the science
account, as evidenced by the fact it is in this bill. Again, we had a
very difficult allocation. Science is cut by $72,203,000.
But, unfortunately, I do think the gentleman's amendment is
counterproductive in that he, because of the
[[Page H3380]]
budget rules, needs a $30 million cut from renewable research to gain a
$15 million add for scientific research. Given the constraints we face,
I think that's a bad bargain and we ought to leave the $30 million
right where it is and have that aptly applied.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. McClintock
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 20, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,450,960,000)''.
Page 20, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $115,000,000)''.
Page 56, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,450,960,000)''.
{time} 1100
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment saves nearly $1.5
billion by ending the failed Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
program.
If we're serious about an all-of-the-above energy policy, we have got
to stop using taxpayer money to pick winners and losers based on
political connections. Instead, we need to require every energy company
to compete on its own merit as decided by the customers it attracts by
offering better products at lower cost.
For too long we have suffered from the conceit that politicians can
make better energy investments with taxpayer money than investors can
make with their own money. It is this conceit that has produced the
continuing spectacle of collapsing energy scandals epitomized by the
Solyndra fiasco. At least Solyndra was funded from a loan program in
which the public has a chance to get some of its money back when these
dubious schemes go bankrupt. This program is direct spending that funds
commercialization projects for ideologically pleasing technologies and
the politically favored firms that make them, money that taxpayers have
no chance of recovering after it's spent.
This amendment and the two that I will offer soon protect taxpayers
from being forced into being venture capitalists by incompetent
politicians. It gets government out of the energy business and requires
all energy companies and all energy technologies to compete equally and
on their own merits.
Most of the money in this program goes to wind, solar, and car
research development subsidies. We're told that's necessary to nurture
these new and promising technologies. Well, these technologies are not
new and they are not promising. Photovoltaic cells, for example, were
invented by French physicist Edmund Becquerel in 1839, and in more than
170 years of technological research and innovation and billions of
dollars of taxpayer subsidies we have not yet invented a more expensive
way to produce electricity. So we hide its true costs to consumers
through subsidies taken from their taxes.
Nor is there any earthly reason why taxpayers should be forced to
serve as the research and development department for General Motors or
for any other company or technology. We're told that, well, someday
this research might pay us back many times over. We've been told that
for 40 years. Now, I hope someday that these empty promises will be
redeemed, but that's still not a reason for taxpayers to foot the bill.
It's a reason for the actual research and development to be paid for by
the companies that will profit from this long-promised breakthrough.
And if they're not willing to finance it with their own money, we have
no business forcing our constituents to finance it with theirs.
All we've accomplished with these programs is to take dollars that
would have naturally flowed into the most effective and promising
technologies and divert them instead to those that are politically
favored. This misallocation of resources not only destroys jobs and
productive ventures, it ends up minimizing our energy potential instead
of maximizing it and destroying our wealth instead of creating it.
Madam Chairman, voters entrusted Republicans with the House majority
with the very specific mandate to stop wasting money. Moreover, the
House is where spending bills must originate. The government doesn't
spend a dollar unless the House says that it will spend a dollar.
A day doesn't go by that we don't hear an indictment of Solyndra and
its multiplying scandals, and yet here we have the Republican Energy
appropriations bill that continues to shovel billions of dollars on the
very same folly that produced Solyndra.
Politicians love to appear at ribbon cuttings and issue self-
congratulatory press releases at government-supported ``alternative
energy'' businesses, but they fall strangely silent when asked to
actually account for the billions of our dollars that they've wasted.
Well, that day of reckoning has arrived. These policies are
impoverishing our country. Our taxpayers are exhausted. Our treasury is
empty. It is past time that this House majority proved worthy of the
trust the American people gave it more than a year and a half ago.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Capito). The gentleman from New Jersey is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment,
which would eliminate the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy at the Department of Energy.
This year, the committee continued fulfilling its responsibility to
reduce government spending by eliminating ineffective and wasteful
programs. Our bill cuts EERE by $428 million. That's a 24 percent cut
below fiscal year 2012, nearly 40 percent below 2010, and well below
the 2000 level. Our bill slashes programs that are ineffective and cuts
activities that improperly intervene in private markets.
The committee will continue its work to reduce spending and to keep
the government out of private enterprise where private enterprise could
make those substantial investments themselves.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the recommendation and also rise in
opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and will simply state that my
objection is based on national security concerns.
The fact is, as the senior Senator from Indiana, Senator Lugar has
characterized our energy crisis for years, and I absolutely agree with
him. The fact is the importation of petroleum products in our use of
carbon, because of where we buy them, has created a significant
national security issue for the United States of America.
One of the accounts in the renewable accounts that will be eliminated
under the gentleman's amendment is vehicle technology. There is no
question American citizens are suffering today because of high gas
prices. I myself--and I only speak for myself--can't do anything about
that particular price at the pump today. But if through the vehicle
technology program and the wise investment of the Federal taxpayers
dollars we can get every American another mile per gallon, we have
removed some of their economic discomfort and burden. We have also
helped to begin to ensure our national security by reducing our
dependency on foreign oil. Therefore, I do strongly oppose the
gentleman's amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
[[Page H3381]]
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Tonko
Mr. TONKO. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 20, line 15, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $180,440,000)''.
Page 30, line 5, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $180,440,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, first I want to thank my colleagues,
Representative Bishop, Representative Hirono, and Representative Welch,
for offering this amendment with me.
Madam Chair, the Tonko-Bishop-Hirono-Welch amendment is simple and
straightforward. It increases funding for two important State energy
efficiency programs in the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
accounts at the Department of Energy.
The amendment would increase spending for the Weatherization
Assistance Program. Weatherization is the largest residential
efficiency program in our Nation. Weatherization reduces energy costs
for low-income families and the elderly and disabled. It creates jobs,
invests in local businesses, and advances technology--state-of-the-art
technology. Weatherizing homes under this program saves $437 in annual
utility bills for the average homeowner. These energy savings insulate
families from rising energy costs by permanently lowering household
energy demand for both heating and cooling.
Our amendment also restores funding to the State Energy Program, or
SEP. SEP is the only cost-shared program administered by the United
States Department of Energy that provides resources directly to the
States to support their efforts in energy efficiency. This includes 56
State and territory energy offices. And, according to a study by the
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, for every dollar in Federal SEP funds we
have 1.03 million source Btus, along with the cost savings of $7.22,
and a leveraging of $10.71 on that same very dollar.
Madam Chair, these programs traditionally have received strong
bipartisan support. Saving money by saving energy is good--good for
everyone.
The bill's deep cuts in weatherization programs from recent years'
allocations is so-called ``justified'' in the report by the claim that
there are large amounts of unspent funds from previous appropriations,
including those from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA.
{time} 1110
Well, the majority of these funds have, in fact, been allocated, and
I understand they will be completely spent by April 1 of next year, the
beginning of the Weatherization Program year for States. So that means
there will be little to nothing available by the time that FY13 funds
get to these States.
The ARRA money and the money from fiscal year 2011 has been obligated
in contracts to subgrantees. In addition to the cuts in weatherization
in this bill, the other source of Federal funds for this program, 10
percent of LIHEAP funds, is also reduced due to the reductions in
funding for that program.
We're going in the wrong direction. If someone can make the case that
we have fully exploited all of our opportunities in weatherization or
can demonstrate that we have done all that we can to make citizens'
homes and businesses energy efficient, then winding down the program
would perhaps be reasonable. But we are a long way from achieving that
goal.
Energy we do not have to use is, in fact, the cheapest energy
available to us. We need to be doing much more in efficiency, not less.
Efficiency should be our fuel of choice.
This bill is skewed to reinforce our existing energy use patterns. It
continues outsized investments in the established energy industries
that have received generous Federal support for nearly a century while
renewable energy technologies are shortchanged.
We should be lending Federal assistance where it is most needed: to
individual citizens and to developing industries that are struggling to
bring new energy technologies forward, such as solar, wind, and
geothermal. The petroleum industry has the means to support its own
research.
Madam Chair, we are likely to be reliant on fossil fuels for quite
some time, and we should use these fuels wisely. An all-of-the-above
strategy must include energy efficiency, and we should support States'
efforts to encourage the adoption of new energy technologies and
increase energy efficiency.
Let's continue our history of bipartisan support for programs that
save money, create jobs, and improve our energy security.
Weatherization and SEP are such programs worthy of our support. I urge
adoption of this amendment.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to strongly oppose the gentleman's
amendment. His amendment would put at risk our nuclear security
activities, the things we're doing to modernize our nuclear stockpile,
the type of investments we're making there that help protect our
country. And we would be adding money to programs that, quite honestly,
don't need the money. He referenced some of those programs.
The Weatherization Program has hundreds of millions of dollars in
unspent money. Some of it's been obligated; some of it has not been
obligated. But sitting in that program and in the State programs he
referred to is a lot of Federal money from the stimulus and other prior
appropriations that remains unspent. So it's not a question of not
having enough money. They just haven't spent it down.
Our bill provides enough funding, new funding, that when combined
with the unspent funds, our bill will fully fund each State at the
fiscal year 2010 level. That's enough money for the States. More
funding is unnecessary.
This amendment has unnecessary funding, adds unnecessary funding, and
it cuts our security, our national security, things we need to do for
our nuclear stockpile, and I strongly oppose it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Chair, I rise to support the Tonko-
Bishop-Hirono-Welch amendment, and I commend my good friend and fellow
New Yorker on his steadfast commitment and long-standing leadership on
this issue.
The increase to weatherization funding provided in this amendment
brings the Weatherization Assistance Program funding close to its pre-
Recovery Act levels, which helped States retrofit close to 100,000
homes a year. In addition, nearly 92 percent of the Recovery Act funds
appropriated to the Weatherization Program have been spent, meaning
that the recommended funding level in this bill will result in a
majority of States receiving reduced Federal funding for
weatherization. Arguments to the contrary with respect to available
funds are simply not accurate.
New York has spent the entirety of its Recovery Act funds on time and
under budget, weatherizing nearly 70,000 units, 20 percent, over its
initial goal. On Long Island, the Community Development Corporation of
Long Island weatherized 3,000 units, thanks to the Recovery Act, and
has continued to spend down the regularly appropriated funds it
receives to retrofit qualified homes.
Weatherization Assistance continues to be a successful program, and
we must build on its success. Even after the Recovery Act and regular
appropriations, the CDC of Long Island has a wait list of 8,000
qualified homes that could be retrofitted for energy efficiency. The
demand is there. And this is just Long Island.
Adequately funding the Weatherization Assistance Program to meet this
demand will have several positive effects on communities and the
economy. It will reduce energy costs for homeowners, which is
absolutely critical as these costs continue to climb. Perhaps
[[Page H3382]]
most important, it will put local contractors back to work retrofitting
homes to be more energy efficient. This means job creation in local
communities.
Most recognize that this is the time when Washington must balance
spending reduction with wise investment. If we all agree that this
Congress must do more to foster an environment of job creation, then I
urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. HIRONO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Hawaii is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. HIRONO. Madam Chair, I rise to support the Tonko-Bishop-Hirono-
Welch amendment. This amendment would increase the funding for the
State Energy Program and the Weatherization Assistance Program.
The bill before us slices the State Energy Program in half, from $50
million to $25 million. I'm not sure what the justification for this
is. This program is effective and we should continue to support it. In
fact, each dollar invested through the State Energy Program translates
into $7.23 of savings on energy costs. It also helps to leverage State
and local funds for bigger impacts.
Hawaii has utilized this funding for a variety of beneficial
activities. It has been used to support expanded clean vehicle
infrastructure, more energy-efficient buildings, and other purposes.
This amendment also invests in the Weatherization Assistance Program.
This program helps the elderly, disabled, and low-income families
benefit from energy efficiency upgrades.
Most folks think of helping weatherize homes against cold weather,
and certainly that's one of the key benefits of this program. In warm
Hawaii, which has the highest energy costs in the country, we also use
in program. We help our families weatherize by installing money-saving
things like energy-efficient water heaters or insulating existing water
heaters. Since 2009, at least 800 homes in Hawaii have been able to
improve energy efficiency through this program. A modest beginning, but
more, of course, needs to be done. This has helped to create jobs and
give families the benefit of increased energy efficiency.
I recognize the hard decisions that are made in this bill, but these
programs that we just talked about may seem small but represent big
savings for families all across our country, and, in fact, it will save
our country money over the long term.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I ask for a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Chaffetz
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 20, line 15, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $74,000,000)''.
Page 56, line 24, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $74,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, I have a simple amendment that takes a
line item within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program
back to the fiscal year 2011 level. Now, I think that's probably a
pretty reasonable approach to it. It's not too long ago. If left to my
own devices, I'd probably zero it out.
But if you go back and look within energy efficiency and renewable
energy and then go back down and look at advanced manufacturing, which
is the line item that I'm talking about, what this amendment suggests
is that we would reduce spending on this, what is proposed, by $74
million, taking it back to the fiscal year 2011 level, which would be
$76 million.
{time} 1120
Now, that was not just some random number. There was real
justification for this, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle will find this reasonable. I'm going back, and I'm looking at the
committee report for Energy and Water appropriations, and there are
three things that I want to highlight within that committee report, so
I will read from that.
The first one I want to highlight reads:
For example, the Advanced Manufacturing Program within
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy currently funds more
than 40 centers in a variety of sizes, ages and effectiveness
levels, only a portion of which are mentioned in the budget
request. These centers vary in how well they support the
program's new manufacturing mission.
Now, I don't think it's appropriate to literally double--double--from
2011 levels the spending that we are going to have on these programs
when we can't basically answer the questions about the effectiveness
levels.
In fact, I would go further into the committee's report where it
reads:
Addressing this problem requires a higher degree of
transparency, evaluation and prioritization to ensure that
only highly effective centers closely aligned to program
missions are funded.
I would agree with that. Until we can as a body answer that question,
it's hardly a time to double the funding for this particular program.
The report further reads:
The Department is directed to submit to the committee no
later than February 10, 2013, a comprehensive list of all
centers funded through fiscal year 2013, including the date
of establishment, the funding level in fiscal year 2013, the
total funding received to date, purpose, milestones, and
expectation of termination date.
Those are all reasonable things to look at in making this
determination, but until we can answer that question, I don't think
it's appropriate to double the spending.
The third point I'd like to make from the committee report on this
particular line item reads:
The committee is concerned that, historically, technology
innovations developed through the EERE research and
development programs ultimately lead to the manufacturing of
new or cheaper products overseas.
So, if the conclusion of the committee is that the money we spend
ultimately leads to the development of products overseas, maybe it's
not time to double the spending there.
This amendment, Madam Chair, simply reduces the spending on this back
to 2011 levels. It's a reasonable thing. We can live within that.
Again, if it were up to me, I would zero it out, but I am trying to be
reasonable here. Let's save the $76 million, answer these questions,
and reevaluate the program. That's why I urge the adoption of this
amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the gentleman from Utah's
amendment.
Our bill works hard to cut Federal spending. We're on his side. We
want to reduce spending. Our committee has gone through the budget for
the Department of Energy. We've taken a look at it, and we've
prioritized. In fact, we've already said in other debates on other
amendments that we've cut this EERE, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, by $428 million. That's 40 percent below the fiscal year 2011
level. With the remaining funds, we re-prioritize to invest in our
Nation's most pressing needs, one of which is in doing more research to
help American manufacturers compete and survive.
Let me restate: We do not increase this account. We re-prioritize to
address our Nation's most pressing needs. In this case, the challenge
is to keep our American manufacturers competitive and to keep jobs
here. Our bill does that. Therefore, I must oppose the gentleman's
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would join the chair in opposition to the amendment.
I would point out one of the fallacies of the gentleman's argument
that he
[[Page H3383]]
used on the floor in his language of the committee's report, that being
our very serious concern that in the past we have applied moneys to
research that has essentially been siphoned off overseas.
During general debate yesterday on this floor, in my opening remarks,
I commended the members of the subcommittee and particularly Chairman
Frelinghuysen for making sure we don't do that in this bill this year,
and that there is throughout this bill and that report language
directives to the Department of Energy to be focused on using this
money wisely so that we maintain and begin to grow our industrial base
and our manufacturing base and keep these jobs here.
This would be a mistake, and I am opposed to the gentleman's
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah will be
postponed.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Hahn
Ms. HAHN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 20, line 15, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
Page 22, line 23, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $100,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. HAHN. I think it is time that we begin to allow Americans to ease
off their dependence of oil and give them a real alternative. Every
day, we see the damage done by our dependence on oil. We see high gas
prices threatening our economic recovery and burdening families already
struggling to make ends meet. We see higher respiratory disease rates.
And we see any number of distant regimes holding our foreign policy
hostage, weakening our ability to stand by our principles and our
friends.
I think it's time for us to throw off these burdens and step into the
future, not double down on the dependencies of the past. Yet somehow
this bill allocates almost five times more funding to deepening and
extending our relationship with fossil energy than it does on advancing
energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy technologies.
One of the most promising and necessary things we can do to give
Americans an alternative to oil is to speed our transition to electric
vehicles. Passenger cars alone use more than 40 percent of the oil
consumed in this country. By 2020, the Natural Resources Defense
Council estimates Americans will spend $260 billion a year on gas.
Just think of what we stand to gain from helping Americans switch to
electric vehicles. The technology is here, and all we need to do is
implement it. My amendment would help us begin to make the kind of
investments the scale of the opportunity before us requires, giving $50
million to the Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy section.
I drive an electric vehicle back in Los Angeles, and I haven't been
to a gas station since last September. Unfortunately, I don't get to
drive as far as I want to because we haven't yet built the electric
vehicle charging infrastructure that would help electric vehicle owners
continue to drive as far as they want. The ``range anxiety'' of not
being able to find a charging station when the battery goes low means
that many EV drivers don't drive as far as they can and that many
prospective electric vehicle owners are scared off. That's why we need
to get serious about addressing the barriers to the adoption of
electric vehicles.
Later this year, Nissan will be making the LEAF, their electric
vehicle, right here in America, in Tennessee. Just last month, the
Department of Energy announced they were offering $5 million to spur
electric vehicle adoption, seeking proposals that address barriers to
the adoption of these vehicles and that drive market development and
transformation to make Alternative Fuel Vehicles and fueling
infrastructure widely available.
We need to be bolder. We ought to have 100 times that much here, but
I know my friends on the other side are a little timid about electric
vehicles, so I am only proposing 10 times as much. I've even reduced
the budgetary authority of this bill by $50 million because I know how
much my Republican friends like to cut spending. With the right
investments and electric vehicle infrastructure, we can clean our
skies, free our foreign policy, strengthen our hand with regimes like
Iran, and put money lost at the pump back into the pockets of American
consumers.
Madam Chair, I hope my colleagues on the other side will meet me
halfway on this, will meet Americans halfway. I hope you will support
this amendment. This is about jobs in America. This is about giving our
American consumers an alternative to their sole dependence on oil.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1130
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the amendment.
The amendment will reduce fossil fuel energy by $50 million. And
let's start by noting that fossil fuels produce most of our Nation's
energy, nearly 70 percent of our electricity and nearly all of our
transportation fuels.
But I do appreciate the gentlewoman's passion for electric vehicles.
In fact, our bill already funds research in that area at above the
fiscal year 2012 level as part of our focus on programs that address
future gas prices. Therefore, I do oppose her amendment. I understand
her views and her passion, but I strongly oppose it.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chairwoman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in reluctant opposition to
the gentlewoman's amendment for the very reasons that I mentioned
earlier in debate when the gentleman from Illinois had an amendment to
cut EERE--the renewable accounts--to add $15 million to science. Again,
in this case, I don't think it is wise for us to make a choice of
cutting fossil energy research by $100 million to increase the energy
efficiency account by one-half that amount, $50 million.
The fact is I understand that some people have a significant concern
about the use of fossil fuels. I certainly do myself. But the fact
remains that 83 percent of all energy consumption in the United States
today is generated by fossil fuel, and we need to apply ourselves to
the wise and efficient use of that fuel as well.
Again, I would reluctantly be opposed to the gentlewoman's amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. HAHN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 20, line 15, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $335,000,000)''.
Page 56, line 24, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $335,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chairman, my amendment would reduce
funding for the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account by $355
million, with the intention of removing all funding for vehicle
technologies.
[[Page H3384]]
This reduction would be transferred to the spending reduction account.
Madam Chairman, I'm 100 percent supportive of the automobile industry
producing more fuel-efficient automobiles if they choose to do so;
however, there is simply no good reason that the Federal Government
should be subsidizing billion-dollar companies at a time when our
Nation is broke.
Over the past few years, we have seen the automobile industry receive
an unprecedented amount of government assistance. We've seen an
industry bailout, the market-distorting Cash for Clunkers, and many
more subsidies all done with little regard for taxpayer money. It's
time we begin to reverse this disturbing trend and let the automobile
industry succeed or fail on its own merits.
I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, briefly I rise to oppose the
amendment.
I share my colleague's concerns that we should not be funding
activities that the private sector should do on its own. That's why our
bill cuts 24 percent out of this account, only preserving appropriate
Federal activities that are too risky for the private sector to take on
alone. The amendment goes too far, undercuts our ability to address gas
prices, and therefore I must oppose it.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I simply would add my agreement to the chairman's
opposition to the amendment.
I had already remarked earlier in the day relative to my support for
vehicle technology and am opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment,
and other expenses necessary for electricity delivery and
energy reliability activities in carrying out the purposes of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion, $123,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That of such
amount, $27,600,000 shall be available until September 30,
2014, for program direction.
Nuclear Energy
For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment,
and other expenses necessary for nuclear energy activities in
carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any
facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction,
or expansion, and the purchase of not more than 10 buses and
2 ambulances, all for replacement only, $765,391,000, to
remain available until expended, of which $10,000,000 shall
be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund established in section
302(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C.
10222(c)), to be made available only to support the high-
level waste geologic repository at Yucca Mountain: Provided,
That, of the amount made available under this heading,
$90,015,000 shall be available until September 30, 2014, for
program direction.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed in the following order:
An amendment by Mr. Scalise of Louisiana.
An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa.
An amendment by Mr. Moran of Virginia.
An amendment by Mr. Hultgren of Illinois.
An amendment by Mr. Chaffetz of Utah.
Amendment No. 6 by Mr. McClintock of California.
An amendment by Ms. Kaptur of Ohio.
An amendment by Mr. Tonko of New York.
An amendment by Ms. Hahn of California.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Scalise
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Scalise) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216,
noes 177, not voting 38, as follows:
[Roll No. 306]
AYES--216
Adams
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Barletta
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Benishek
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Buerkle
Burgess
Butterfield
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Conyers
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Denham
Deutch
Dingell
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Fudge
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hurt
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Lamborn
Landry
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Polis
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Renacci
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Sullivan
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Turner (NY)
Upton
Walberg
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Woodall
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOES--177
Ackerman
Aderholt
Andrews
Austria
Bachus
Baldwin
Bartlett
Bass (NH)
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costello
Crenshaw
Crowley
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeLauro
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fincher
Fleischmann
Flores
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Garamendi
Gerlach
Granger
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huizenga (MI)
Hunter
Issa
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
King (NY)
Kingston
Labrador
Lance
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lipinski
[[Page H3385]]
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lynch
Maloney
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinley
McNerney
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Noem
Nunes
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Perlmutter
Peterson
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rehberg
Reichert
Ribble
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Speier
Stark
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner (OH)
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden
Waxman
Webster
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Yoder
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--38
Baca
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Cardoza
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Costa
Doyle
Ellison
Fortenberry
Gallegly
Guinta
Heinrich
Herger
Kind
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Mack
McCarthy (CA)
McCollum
McKeon
Miller, Gary
Moore
Neal
Pascrell
Paul
Rothman (NJ)
Schilling
Scott, David
Shuler
Slaughter
Tsongas
Velazquez
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Waters
Young (FL)
{time} 1209
Mr. WALDEN, Mrs. ROBY, Mr. MORAN, Ms. SCHWARTZ, Messrs. LATTA,
KINGSTON, LABRADOR, BASS of New Hampshire, Ms. BONAMICI, Ms. LORETTA
SANCHEZ of California, Messrs. SIMPSON, FINCHER, SMITH of Nebraska,
DesJARLAIS, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Messrs. RYAN of Ohio, HONDA, RUSH, and
FRANK of Massachusetts changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. JACKSON of Illinois, SCOTT of Virginia, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE
JOHNSON of Texas, Ms. LEE of California, Messrs. DAVIS of Illinois,
THOMPSON of Mississippi, GRIFFITH of Virginia, Ms. WILSON of Florida,
Messrs. REED, KINZINGER of Illinois, WESTMORELAND, CANTOR, Ms.
SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. WHITFIELD, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Messrs. AL GREEN of
Texas, ISRAEL, AMODEI, Mrs. ELLMERS, Mr. CUELLAR, Mrs. LOWEY, Messrs.
MEEKS, CLEAVER, FORBES, CONYERS, BECERRA, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan,
Messrs. PASTOR of Arizona, CICILLINE, GRAVES of Missouri, LUJAN, POLIS,
NUGENT, GONZALEZ, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Messrs. LANGEVIN, DEUTCH, and
HASTINGS of Florida changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
King) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 203,
noes 185, not voting 43, as follows:
[Roll No. 307]
AYES--203
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hochul
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Shimkus
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Visclosky
Walberg
Webster
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--185
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bono Mack
Boren
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gardner
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Olver
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stivers
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Upton
Walden
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
West
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Womack
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--43
Alexander
Baca
Bass (CA)
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Cardoza
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Costa
Doyle
Ellison
Fortenberry
Gallegly
Guinta
Heinrich
Herger
Huizenga (MI)
Kind
Landry
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Mack
McCarthy (CA)
McCollum
McKeon
Miller, Gary
Moore
Neal
Pascrell
Paul
Rothman (NJ)
Schilling
Scott, David
Shuler
Slaughter
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Waters
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1212
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Moran) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
[[Page H3386]]
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 152,
noes 237, not voting 42, as follows:
[Roll No. 308]
AYES--152
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Olver
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--237
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Holden
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--42
Alexander
Baca
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Cardoza
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Costa
Doyle
Ellison
Emerson
Fortenberry
Gallegly
Guinta
Heinrich
Herger
Huizenga (MI)
Kind
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Mack
McCarthy (CA)
McCollum
McKeon
Miller, Gary
Moore
Neal
Pascrell
Paul
Rothman (NJ)
Schilling
Scott, David
Shuler
Slaughter
Stivers
Tsongas
Velazquez
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Waters
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1216
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hultgren
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Hultgren) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 130,
noes 256, not voting 45, as follows:
[Roll No. 309]
AYES--130
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilirakis
Black
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Buerkle
Burgess
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Cassidy
Chabot
Conaway
Costello
Cravaack
Dent
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (MO)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Hall
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hinojosa
Hochul
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Jordan
Kelly
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lofgren, Zoe
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKinley
Miller (FL)
Mulvaney
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Olson
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Ribble
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Thornberry
Turner (NY)
Walberg
Webster
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Woodall
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--256
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Garamendi
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kissell
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
[[Page H3387]]
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Marino
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ross (AR)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stivers
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Turner (OH)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
West
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Yoder
NOT VOTING--45
Ackerman
Alexander
Baca
Bucshon
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Cardoza
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Costa
Doyle
Ellison
Fortenberry
Gallegly
Graves (GA)
Guinta
Heinrich
Herger
Huizenga (MI)
Johnson, Sam
Kind
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Mack
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCollum
McKeon
Miller, Gary
Moore
Neal
Pascrell
Paul
Rothman (NJ)
Schilling
Scott, David
Shuler
Slaughter
Tsongas
Velazquez
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Waters
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1219
Mr. PALLONE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Chaffetz
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Chaffetz) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 140,
noes 245, not voting 46, as follows:
[Roll No. 310]
AYES--140
Adams
Akin
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Conaway
Cravaack
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Guthrie
Hall
Harris
Hayworth
Hensarling
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
King (IA)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latta
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCaul
McClintock
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Ribble
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Terry
Thornberry
Turner (NY)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--245
Aderholt
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Edwards
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Garamendi
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibson
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Marino
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Noem
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stivers
Sullivan
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Turner (OH)
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Womack
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--46
Ackerman
Alexander
Baca
Bass (CA)
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Cardoza
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Costa
Crowley
Doyle
Ellison
Fortenberry
Gallegly
Guinta
Heinrich
Herger
Huizenga (MI)
Johnson, Sam
Kind
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Mack
McCarthy (CA)
McCollum
McKeon
Miller, Gary
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Neal
Pascrell
Paul
Rothman (NJ)
Schilling
Scott, David
Shuler
Slaughter
Stutzman
Tsongas
Velazquez
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Waters
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1223
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. McClintock
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. McClintock) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 113,
noes 275, not voting 43, as follows:
[Roll No. 311]
AYES--113
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Benishek
Bilirakis
[[Page H3388]]
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buerkle
Burgess
Campbell
Cantor
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Conaway
Culberson
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleming
Flores
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Jones
Jordan
Kline
Labrador
Landry
Long
Lummis
Manzullo
Marchant
McClintock
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Ribble
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Thornberry
Turner (NY)
Upton
Walberg
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--275
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Butterfield
Camp
Canseco
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Edwards
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Garamendi
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Noem
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stivers
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Turner (OH)
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--43
Ackerman
Alexander
Baca
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Cardoza
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Costa
Doyle
Ellison
Fortenberry
Gallegly
Guinta
Heinrich
Herger
Huizenga (MI)
Johnson, Sam
Kind
Lamborn
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Mack
McCarthy (CA)
McCollum
McKeon
Miller, Gary
Moore
Neal
Pascrell
Paul
Rothman (NJ)
Schilling
Scott, David
Shuler
Slaughter
Tsongas
Velazquez
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Waters
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1227
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Kaptur) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183,
noes 200, not voting 48, as follows:
[Roll No. 312]
AYES--183
Andrews
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Edwards
Engel
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
King (IA)
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--200
Adams
Aderholt
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cassidy
Chabot
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Latta
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
[[Page H3389]]
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--48
Ackerman
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Cardoza
Carter
Chaffetz
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Costa
DeFazio
Doyle
Ellison
Eshoo
Fortenberry
Gallegly
Guinta
Heinrich
Herger
Huizenga (MI)
Johnson, Sam
Kind
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Mack
McCarthy (CA)
McCollum
McKeon
Miller, Gary
Moore
Neal
Pascrell
Paul
Rothman (NJ)
Schilling
Scott, David
Shuler
Slaughter
Tsongas
Velazquez
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Waters
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1230
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Tonko
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Tonko) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 148,
noes 236, not voting 47, as follows:
[Roll No. 313]
AYES--148
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Olver
Pallone
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Turner (NY)
Van Hollen
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--236
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cassidy
Chabot
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (OH)
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--47
Ackerman
Alexander
Baca
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Cardoza
Carter
Chaffetz
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Costa
Doyle
Ellison
Fortenberry
Gallegly
Guinta
Heinrich
Herger
Honda
Huizenga (MI)
Johnson, Sam
Kind
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Mack
McCarthy (CA)
McCollum
McKeon
Miller, Gary
Moore
Neal
Pascrell
Paul
Rothman (NJ)
Schilling
Scott, David
Shuler
Slaughter
Stearns
Tsongas
Velazquez
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Waters
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1233
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 313 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment Offered by Ms. Hahn
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Hahn) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 139,
noes 245, not voting 47, as follows:
[Roll No. 314]
AYES--139
Amash
Andrews
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Garamendi
Gibson
[[Page H3390]]
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Olver
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Van Hollen
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--245
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Altmire
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cassidy
Chabot
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Towns
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--47
Ackerman
Alexander
Baca
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Cardoza
Carter
Chaffetz
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Costa
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Fortenberry
Gallegly
Granger
Guinta
Heinrich
Herger
Huizenga (MI)
Johnson, Sam
Kind
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Mack
McCarthy (CA)
McCollum
McKeon
Miller, Gary
Moore
Neal
Pascrell
Paul
Rothman (NJ)
Schilling
Scott, David
Shuler
Slaughter
Tsongas
Velazquez
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Waters
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1237
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chair, I was unavoidably detained and missed
rollcall vote Nos. 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313 and 314. Had
I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 308,
312, and 313. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall
vote Nos. 306, 307, 309, 310, 311 and 314.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now
rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Turner of New York) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Capito, Acting Chair
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
5325) making appropriations for energy and water development and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________