[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 47 (Wednesday, April 10, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H1874-H1878]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 678, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION SMALL
CONDUIT HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT AND RURAL JOBS ACT
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 140 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 140
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 678) to authorize all Bureau of Reclamation
conduit facilities for hydropower development under Federal
Reclamation law, and for other purposes. The first reading of
the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Natural Resources. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. No
amendment to the bill shall be in order except: (1) those
received for printing in the portion of the Congressional
Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII
dated at least one day before the day of consideration of the
amendment; and (2) pro forma amendments for the purpose of
debate. Each amendment so received may be offered only by the
Member who caused it to be printed or a designee and shall be
considered as read if printed. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The gentleman from Utah
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for
the purpose of debate only.
This resolution provides for a modified open rule for the
consideration of H.R. 678, the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit
Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act, and provides for 1 hour of
general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources.
It makes in order all amendments which were preprinted in the
Congressional Record and which otherwise comply with the rules of the
House. So this modified open rule is very fair, it's a generous rule,
and it will provide for a balanced and open debate on the merits of
this particular bill.
Mr. Speaker, I'm also pleased to stand before the House and support
this rule, as well as the underlying legislation, H.R. 678, which is
the long title I gave earlier.
I appreciate the hard work of the bill's chief sponsor, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), as well as the chairman of the Natural
Resources Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), and
of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, Mr. McClintock of California, for
allowing this bill to move forward from the committee and continuing
the Natural Resource Committee's record, under Chairman Hastings'
leadership, of furthering several important pieces of legislation
which, if enacted, will greatly improve our Nation's energy policies
and provide a responsible, balanced approach to further domestic energy
development.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman
from Utah for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, last Friday we received the news that the economy had
only added 88,000 jobs in the month of March. The percentage of
unemployed Americans dropped, but that is almost entirely because
thousands of workers have given up looking for jobs at all.
This slowdown is a warning to Congress, but we won't take it, I feel
sure, since we've pretty much ignored it. Unless this majority reverses
the spending cuts contained in the sequester, the health of our economy
is only getting worse.
[[Page H1875]]
Months ago, economists were warning that the sequester will stall out
our economy and lead to job loss, and as we can see by the March data,
their predictions are beginning to come true.
With economic warning bells beginning to toll, one would expect
Congress to make job creation our number one priority. But one would
certainly be wrong because we haven't done that at all. Unfortunately,
such expectations don't even come close.
Instead of working on legislation to grow our economy and to create
some good-paying jobs, we are wasting valuable session time discussing
yet another bill that went nowhere in the last Congress, and I predict
will go nowhere in this one as well. But we seem to have the time to
waste.
The majority has decided that erasing environmental regulations for
hydropower companies is a better use of time than putting Americans
back to work and to help families pay their bills.
Furthermore, the bill before us today is a solution in search of a
problem that does not exist. Despite the rhetoric of the majority,
small conduit hydropower projects are rarely delayed because of
environmental regulations. In fact, from 2006 to 2010, 13 exemptions
were completed in less than a year, and in 2011 there were nine
exemptions that were granted in an average of 40 days.
In addition, changes within the last year have made the process even
easier for hydropower developers. Under the new regulations by the
Bureau of Reclamation, all a developer has to do to avoid a full
environmental assessment is to get a simple, 1\1/2\ page form filled
out with 15 boxes to check ``yes'' or ``no.'' That is certainly not a
burdensome regulation. All they have to do is check the box ``yes'' or
``no,'' indicate the project is not in an especially sensitive area.
Most small conduit hydropower projects will easily pass this test
because the reclamation sites are already developed. But despite what
you may hear, there is little evidence that there is even a problem
with hydropower regulation that needs to be solved.
Contained within today's legislation is a proposal to clarify the
lines of authority between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission. This is a worthwhile effort that would
receive bipartisan support, and we made that very clear. Standing
alone, though, this proposal could pass on suspension within a matter
of minutes. That would, of course, leave us with nothing to do here
today, so here we are.
During the debate in the Natural Resources Committee, the majority
was given the opportunity to agree to the noncontroversial and
bipartisan parts of the legislation and drop their partisan attacks on
environmental safeguards.
{time} 1250
Unfortunately, the majority has once again rejected this chance for
productive compromise and chosen the partisan path. And as a result, we
are here spending time debating another partisan bill that will not
pass the Senate and turning our back on the pressing economic needs of
this country.
I've said many times on the floor during rules debates that CBS News
had estimated it costs $24 million a week to run the Congress of the
United States. And it has been embarrassing that we do so little work.
But for millions of Americans, the luxury of the time that we take here
is something they cannot afford.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation so
we can get back to the task of growing our economy, repealing the
sequester, and creating American jobs.
I reserve the balance of my time.
General Leave
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of this piece of
legislation, to explain why it is so necessary that we do this, even
though on paper it seems like this problem is solved.
Mr. TIPTON. I thank Chairman Bishop for yielding.
When we're talking about job creation in this country, I think it's
worthy to note I just traveled through the Third Congressional District
of Colorado visiting with people from Pueblo to Alamosa, Durango,
Cortez, Montrose, Craig, Hayden, and Steamboat. One of the greatest
challenges that they face is regulations coming out of Washington when
it comes to job creation.
The fact of the matter is we're spending $1.75 trillion per year for
businesses to be able to comply with government mandates. Is it a
sensible approach to be able to look at regulations that simply don't
work and are inhibiting job creation and our ability to be able to
achieve the most carbon-free, environmentally friendly legislation that
we can have? That's hydropower. That is a sensible approach.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to vote in favor of House Resolution 140 and for an open
discussion on how we're going to be able to work together to be able to
promote clean, renewable hydropower development in rural America and
create much-needed jobs in the process. At a time when our country
needs to be able to focus on domestic energy production and job
creation, hydropower can play a critical role in providing clean
renewable energy while expanding job opportunities in some of our
hardest hit rural communities.
Hydropower is the cheapest and cleanest source of electricity
available through modern technology. It's the highest source of non-
carbon-emitting energy in the world and accounts for approximately 75
percent of the United States' total renewable electricity generation,
making it the leading renewable energy resource of power. Canal-based
hydropower can produce up to 1,400 megawatts of power in Colorado
alone. Let's put this in perspective. This is the equivalent of the
power produced by the originally designed output of the Glen Canyon
Dam, just out of Colorado, not including the rest of the western United
States.
Increased conduit hydropower serves a number of purposes: it produces
renewable and emissions-free energy that can be used to pump water or
sell electricity to the grid; it can offset diesel-generated pumps; it
can generate revenue for the hydropower developer to help pay for aging
infrastructure costs and water/power facility modernization; and it can
create local jobs and generate revenue for the Federal Government.
As it stands, Federal regulations hinder this development on Federal
projects and subject job creators to unnecessary requirements which can
render small hydropower projects economically unfeasible. For this
reason, I introduced H.R. 678, the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit
Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act. This legislation authorizes
power development at the agency's conduits to clear up multi-agency
confusion and duplicative processes and reduces the regulatory costs
associated with hydropower development.
H.R. 678, as passed by the Natural Resources Committee with
bipartisan support, would eliminate the requirement of duplicative and
unnecessary environmental analyses for projects on manmade facilities
which already underwent a full environmental review at the time of
their construction or when undergoing rehabilitation. The bill covers
small hydropower generators installed on manmade pipes, ditches, and
canals; and the renewable energy development promoted by the bill in no
way impacts the natural environment. By streamlining this process, we
can finally make these small conduit hydropower projects financially
feasible and unleash private investment in clean energy that will
reduce costs for ratepayers and increase tax revenue for the Treasury
while putting people back to work.
I understand that some of my friends on the other side have
reservations about this provision; and as I have made clear in the
past, I'm open to working with my colleagues to be able to address
their concerns with the NEPA provision. However, failure to address the
existing regulatory uncertainty would negate one of the primary
purposes of the bill and would ensure that the renewable energy
development envisioned by the bill remains in limbo. I'm optimistic
that discussing this issue openly will allay any concerns Members may
have and allow us
[[Page H1876]]
to be able to arrive at a solution which ensures the implementation of
a statutory framework that streamlines the project approval process and
reduces costs.
I'm proud to have the support of the Family Farm Alliance, the
National Water Resources Association, and the American Public Power
Association, among others. I think the broad support this bill has seen
among those most directly impacted indicates how close we are to making
this renewable energy development a reality. I look forward to an open
discussion on the merits of the bill, which I believe will speak for
themselves.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and
I reserve the balance of my time until my colleague is ready to close.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Let me take a moment just to give my impression
of this particular bill, and then I'll be ready to close at that time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill which had a bipartisan vote in
this body last time and a bipartisan vote in the committee, sent to the
Senate, where an errant Senator was able to hold the process up.
Fortunately, in this session, there is a new chairman of that committee
in the Senate from the West who clearly understands the value and
significance of hydroelectric power.
So I think that everyone in this body on both sides of the aisle can
agree that our Nation is in great need of more energy. If we want to
create real jobs, private sector jobs, there has to be a strong energy
component to our ability to do that. Our Nation has tremendous amounts
of energy that are locked away domestically in the forms of oil and gas
and low sulphur and high-BTU coal reserves; but too often special
interest groups and layers of bureaucracy have kept us from becoming
more energy self-sufficient with these areas. And we're now seeing and
feeling the results every time somebody tries to pay an electric bill.
This administration seems to be dragging its feet on energy
development of everything from the Keystone Pipeline to the development
of public lands. But there is also another source of energy that is
presently being unused and can be put to good use without negatively
impacting the environment. The energy resource is what we're addressing
here in this particular bill. This bill deals with electricity that can
be generated from hydro, a renewable energy resource that is very clean
and helpful to the environment.
Numerous witnesses testified this year and last year that there is an
uncertainty on the NEPA costs, which throw these projects into limbo
and often render projects financially unfeasible and stifle private
investment far beyond what has been able to be done. Thus, this is
stifling what could be done to produce self-sufficiency in energy
production. One witness from Arizona simply testified in 2011 that it
would cost them $20,000 to install this generator that would create
energy in a Federal canal. Yet the NEPA analysis would cost them
$50,000 to check the boxes and do that simple paperwork, as we have
heard about. The environmental paperwork in this case is almost three
times the cost of the capital that you would put into the project. And
it all is redundant since the NEPA analysis was done in the first place
for the entire canal. This is a second project put in the same canal
that has already gone through this process. It's a manmade canal.
Witnesses have testified this year that despite the Bureau of
Reclamation's claim of its categorical exclusions and having a policy
in place, not one project has utilized this project because of a
potential legal uncertainty surrounding categorical exclusions.
{time} 1300
As a result, there is no new development that has occurred, and the
gentleman from Colorado's amendment will improve this particular
situation. So, once again, let this be done.
This is not denying a NEPA review. NEPA has already been done on
every one of these projects. This is saying you don't need to do the
same thing a second time, which is simply redundant, it is silly, it's
red tape, bungling by administrations that need not be there.
The choice is very simple in this particular bill: Either you can
give the administration, the executive branch, the right to make these
kinds of decisions on moving us forward, in which case the
administration can make and can take away their decision at whim, in
which case it invites litigation because of the uncertainty of an
administrative policy, and also invites conflict within different
administrative agencies. Or we can do what we're supposed to do and
actually pass legislation to solve problems. The gentleman from
Colorado's approach is simply allowing the legislature to make the
decision, to institute what the policy will be and tell the agencies
how they will proceed into the future. We can either have the
legislature stand up and do our job and do it the right way or we can
pass it all off and let the executive branch come up with regulations
now which they could change and also are subject to the fear of
litigation.
This is an easy thing to do. This bill actually should be a no-
brainer. It will increase the energy production we have in the country,
it will increase the ability of making sure that we have adequate water
resources in the West, it will also give a needed boost of revenues to
the canal companies, and it will create ultimately more jobs,
especially with a cheap form of highly effective energy production.
This bill is reasonable, and it's understandable why it passed with a
bipartisan vote last time. I hope it passes with a bipartisan vote
again, and I hope we can recognize that this will move us forward.
Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time unless the
gentlelady has other speeches that she has requests for.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, so I am
prepared to close if my colleague is.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am prepared to close when you are.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, today's bill does nothing to address the pressing
economic issues facing every American household and fails to stop the
sequestration cuts that are threatening our economy as a whole. It's
rather ambiguous. On one hand it gives; on the other hand it takes back
away, but we'll get into that in the general debate.
Instead, today's legislation unnecessarily attacks environmental
protections while doing nothing to create new jobs. Today's legislation
includes a blanket waiver for all small conduit hydropower projects
that generate less than 5 megawatts of power. The requirement is
arbitrary and would fail to protect the environment. Environmental
danger is not determined by the megawatts produced but whether the
hydropower project is located where it is likely to do damage. A 1-
megawatt project in the wrong location would be more harmful to the
environment than a 6-megawatt project in the right location.
Perhaps most importantly, consideration of this legislation is taking
up time that we could otherwise be using to repeal the sequester and
create jobs. As I have mentioned repeatedly on the House floor, my
colleague and ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen,
has appeared at the Rules Committee repeatedly offering legislation to
repeal the sequester and reduce our deficit in a responsible way. The
Rules Committee on at least three times has never even allowed it to
come to the floor. Despite voting on hydropower legislation twice in
the last 13 months, the majority has rejected Mr. Van Hollen, who, as I
said, is the ranking member on the Budget Committee, and his bill would
save and create thousands of jobs.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 1426 from Representative Tim
Bishop of New York to roll back tax giveaways to big oil companies. The
bill is known as the Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record
along with extraneous matter immediately prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and
defeat the previous question so that we can get back to trying to grow
our economy and create American jobs,
[[Page H1877]]
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me state a couple
of things. Number one, this is a good rule. Therefore, you should vote
for this rule. It is a fair and open rule--a fair and modified open
rule. More importantly, it is a rule that will allow us to discuss a
very good bill. This bill encourages energy production. We may think of
these as small energy projects, but I am told that all these small
projects already being held up in Colorado would create the amount of
energy that comes from a large project like the Glen Canyon Dam. It's a
large amount of energy that is clean energy that we will be producing.
Number two, this bill gets rid of redundancy. It is not that we are
doing away with environmental protection or a review for environmental
protection. That environmental protection review has already been done.
It is that we're simply saying for these small projects you don't need
to do the same thing a second time and incur the cost, which is an
amazing amount of cost, and potential litigation factors that go along
with it.
If we do want to produce private sector jobs, and that is a worthy
goal, you have to have energy to do it. This bill produces the energy
which will be used to grow the economy to produce those jobs that we
really want. That is why it is a bipartisan bill, and I expect a
bipartisan vote on this particular bill. It's a good bill, and we
should pass it today. This is a fair rule, and I urge its adoption.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 140 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
1426) to disallow the deduction for income attributable to
domestic production activities with respect to oil and gas
activities of major integrated oil companies. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of
the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution
on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House
shall, immediately after the third daily order of business
under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the
Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 1426.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. With that, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236,
nays 190, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 93]
YEAS--236
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
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 (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
[[Page H1878]]
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--190
Andrews
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--5
Castor (FL)
Hastings (FL)
Lynch
Markey
Ros-Lehtinen
{time} 1334
Mr. PASCRELL changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________