[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 93 (Wednesday, June 26, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H4049-H4057]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1613, OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF
TRANSBOUNDARY HYDROCARBON AGREEMENTS AUTHORIZATION ACT; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2231, OFFSHORE ENERGY AND JOBS ACT; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2410, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND
DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014;
PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM JUNE 20, 2013, THROUGH
JULY 5, 2013; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules I call up House Resolution 274 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 274
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
1613) to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to
provide for the proper Federal management and oversight of
transboundary hydrocarbon reservoirs, and for other purposes.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed
in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural
Resources; (2) the further amendment printed in part A of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, if offered by Representative Grayson of Florida
or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention
of any point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be
separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question; and (3) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. 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. 2231) to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to
increase energy exploration and production on the Outer
Continental Shelf, provide for equitable revenue sharing for
all coastal States, implement the reorganization of the
functions of the former Minerals Management Service into
distinct and separate agencies, 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. In lieu of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill, it
shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment
in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 113-16. That amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are
waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B
of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 3. 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. 2410) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2014, 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 Appropriations. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the
bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are
waived except as follows: section 717; section 718; the words
``or any other'' on page 64, line 13; the words ``or any
other'' on page 65, line 9; and section 740. Where points of
order are waived against part of a section, points of order
against a provision in another part of such section may be
made only against such provision and not against the entire
section. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the
chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in
recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an
amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8
of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as
read. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to
the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 4. On any legislative day during the period from June
29, 2013, through July 5, 2013--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 5. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
Sec. 6. It shall be in order without intervention of any
point of order to consider concurrent resolutions providing
for adjournment during the month of July.
Sec. 7. The Committee on Appropriations may, at any time
before 6 p.m. on Wednesday, July 3, 2013, file privileged
reports to accompany measures making appropriations for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2014.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 1
hour.
{time} 1240
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to our good friend, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings), who I certainly hope is feeling better than the
way he's walking today, pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days during which they may 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. This resolution provides for a structured rule
for the consideration of H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act of
2013, as well as H.R. 1613, the Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary
Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act, and makes several specific
amendments in order to each bill which are germane and compliant with
the rules of the House. This proposed rule also provides for an open
rule for consideration of H.R. 2410, the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies bill.
These energy bills, if enacted, will help foster responsible
development of our abundant offshore domestic energy resources and will
do so in an environmentally responsible manner. H.R. 2231 would help
reverse some of the current administration's energy policies, which are
stalling responsible offshore lease development on the Outer
Continental Shelf. This legislation would require that the
administration implement a new 5-year leasing plan, including 50
percent of the areas that have been previously identified as the most
promising in oil reserves and natural gas.
The average American consumer has seen their energy bill double since
this
[[Page H4050]]
administration started. A gallon of gas was under $2 when the President
was first sworn in. It's now routinely more than $4 a gallon--and
continues to climb. And yet the administration deliberately stalls and
blocks job-creating, energy-producing projects like the Keystone
pipeline for the responsible development of coal and tar sands reserves
we have on our public lands, including in my own State. This actually
hits the middle class and the poor class the worst.
H.R. 2231 will streamline the current bureaucracy handling these
leases and will also implement a fair and equitable revenue-sharing
plan for coastal States. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated
that passage of this bill will reduce net direct spending of the
Federal Government by $1.5 billion over the next 10 years. So, in
essence, you have a bill that makes us more energy independent, drives
down the cost of fuel for U.S. families, helps reduce the cost of the
Federal Government, and produces an estimated 1.2 million jobs. I
think, by most standards, that would be considered a fairly good bill.
Likewise, the other bill in the rule, H.R. 1613, the Outer
Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization
Act, will provide for improved Federal management and oversight of
energy resources which straddle international boundaries. Passage of
this act will implement an agreement we already have with the
Government of Mexico on how to handle development of these resources,
including revenue-sharing concepts, as well as ensuring that the United
States companies that are investing will develop their resources but
not be imperiled by actions that may be taken later on by the
Government.
Finally, the resolution also provides for a modified open rule for
consideration of H.R. 2410, the fiscal year 2014 Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill, which continues what was common when I first
arrived here and then stopped but was then reinstated and continues to
be reinstated by Chairman Pete Sessions--having open rules on our
appropriations bills.
I'm appreciative of the Rules Committee chairman's leadership in this
regard. I'm also appreciative of the hard work and dedication of the
bill's sponsors. First, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan),
the gentleman from Washington, also chairman of the House Natural
Resources Committee (Mr. Hastings), as well as the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), for his leadership on the Agriculture
appropriation bill. In short, this is a fair and good rule dealing with
good pieces of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, these are good bills. I urge their adoption, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Utah, my friend
(Mr. Bishop), for yielding the customary 30 minutes to me.
This rule provides for the consideration of three bills, as
enunciated by my friend from Utah. However, the only thing that these
bills have in common is that they're overwhelmingly partisan in nature
and fail to address the most pressing challenges facing our country.
Bottom line: we should be doing all that we can to help struggling
Americans get back on their feet.
The first bill, H.R. 1613, had been relatively noncontroversial and
could have been addressed under suspension. But instead, my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle have chosen to take the partisan route
by including a provision that waives the Securities and Exchange
Commission natural resources extraction disclosure rule of the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which requires
the disclosure of payments from oil and gas companies to foreign
governments. I just simply don't understand why this poison pill was
added.
Similarly, H.R. 2231 opens up new, unsafe drilling off the coasts of
14 States at a time when domestic energy production is booming.
Furthermore, the bill does virtually nothing--and I asked that question
of our colleague, Mr. Duncan from South Carolina--to implement key
safety reforms in the wake of the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster and
constrains the statutory review process for offshore drilling.
This is a part of the Republicans' ``drill, baby, drill'' energy
policy agenda. While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
continue to bring bills like this to the floor which contain huge
giveaways to Big Oil, it is clear that they're not interested in doing
a thing to protect worker safety, the environment, or the tourism and
fishing industries. It is astounding that Congress would move forward
to open new natural gas and oil leases when this institution has not
acted on the recommendation to improve the safety of offshore drilling.
If we didn't learn anything at all from BP, we're not ever going to
learn anything. The successor to the BP spill commission recently gave
Congress a D-plus grade on its legislative response to the spill.
Before opening any new leases, we should enact legislation to improve
safety and eliminate or adjust the liability caps upward. We have a
pitiable liability cap now of $75 million.
It is time to get real about energy policy. We need to invest in the
development of renewable resources, which would reduce our impact on
climate change and move us towards true energy independence. These two
bills today aren't about gas prices or job creation. They're about
bolstering the Republicans' political base and lining the pockets of
Big Oil and gas CEOs.
Republicans' refusal to address the sequester and insistence upon
limited cuts in the Homeland Security, MilCon/VA, and DOD
appropriations bills leave all the other nondefense measures like H.R.
2410 before us today with inadequate funding levels. The refusal by my
friends on the other side to appoint conferees to reach a bipartisan
compromise on the budget and end the sequester has left us with this
disastrous agriculture bill that we saw last week. As my Republican
colleagues very well know, there are $214 million in cuts to Women,
Infants, and Children, or WIC, funding, which will prevent 214,000
eligible applicants from receiving the nutrition they need.
{time} 1250
Furthermore, there are $284 million in cuts to Food for Peace that
will result in 7.4 million fewer people receiving food aid from the
United States. Mr. Speaker, I'd really laugh, except the prioritization
of partisanship and politics over responsibility has become par for the
course in the Republican-controlled Congress.
As I pointed out before, just last week the Republican partisan farm
bill was scuttled. Traditionally--I'm here now 21 years, and that bill,
at times that it was brought appropriately, was a bipartisan piece of
legislation. Draconian cuts and work requirements imposed upon programs
that benefit the poorest among us effectively killed any chance of the
FARRM Bill passing. Rather than see passage of a strong, bipartisan
bill, Republicans deliberately made it unpalatable to even strong
agriculture supporters like myself. These are not the priorities of a
Nation that cares about its poor. These are the priorities of a
Republican Party that cares only about itself.
The poor are not villains. Many are trapped in inescapable situations
due to circumstances totally beyond their control and largely, in many
instances, by our making here in this institution. Mr. Speaker, it's
hard to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when those bootstraps,
without any nourishment, may be the only thing you have to eat.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the author of
one of the bills in here, as well as the chairman of the Natural
Resources Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding time,
and I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying legislation
covered by the rule.
Mr. Speaker, in our country today, millions of Americans continue to
search for work, the national average price of gasoline is $3.50, and
rising costs of everything from electricity to food to health care
makes it tough for families and small businesses to make ends meet. But
instead of providing relief for struggling Americans, President Obama
yesterday announced a plan that will inflict further pain and cause
further damage to our struggling economy.
The President's latest attempt to unilaterally impose a national
energy tax will cost American jobs and will increase energy prices.
Now, in stark
[[Page H4051]]
contrast to that, Mr. Speaker, Republicans are advancing solutions to
expand access to affordable energy in order to create jobs and to lower
energy costs. The bills the House is considering this week are
necessary because of the Obama administration's persistent and
destructive attacks on American energy production. The President's
latest efforts to impose new energy taxes and government red tape
follow 4.5 years of erecting American energy roadblocks.
H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act, will unlock our offshore
energy resources that are being held captive by this administration.
The differences are clear between the President's current no-new-
drilling-and-no-new-jobs plan and the Republican pro-energy, pro-jobs
offshore drilling plan. The President's 5-year current offshore leasing
plan keeps 85 percent of offshore areas under lock and key--Mr.
Speaker, keeps 85 percent under lock and key--effectively reinstating
the moratoria that were lifted right before he took office.
The Republican drill-smart plan would open new areas containing the
most oil and natural gas resources, allowing for new energy production
in parts of the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts. The President's plan
refuses even to let Virginia develop its offshore resources until after
2017 and cancels a lease sale that would have allowed them to go
offshore 2 years ago.
The Republican plan supports the bipartisan wishes of the Virginia
Governor, the congressional delegation, and the public by requiring an
offshore lease sale to be held.
The President's plan suppresses American job creation and economic
growth. Our plan, Mr. Speaker, in contrast, would create 1.2 million
jobs long term and would generate $1.5 billion in new revenue. This
Republican approach is exactly what our country and our economy needs
right now.
We can do better than what the President outlined yesterday that
stifles American energy production and raises energy costs.
I urge adoption of the rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I would say to my very good friend and
namesake, if you can do better, do it.
I'm very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished
colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) with whom I serve on the
Rules Committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, last week, the FARRM Bill failed. It
failed in large part because of Republicans' nasty attacks on America's
nutrition and anti-hunger programs.
Notwithstanding the experience of last week, in this rule the House
is considering debating the agriculture appropriations bill, a bill
that not only underfunds the WIC program, but actually makes it more
difficult for low-income women to receive breastfeeding counseling.
Mr. Speaker, it's as if the Republican leadership hasn't learned from
its mistakes. WIC is a critical program that provides food and
nutrition counseling for low-income, pregnant and breastfeeding women,
as well as for newborns and infants. It is an important and successful
program. It is a key program that helps pregnant and breastfeeding
women stay healthy through proper nutrition and actually helps prevent
many health issues associated with poor nutrition.
Despite the program's 39-year successful track record, the
Republicans decided to include WIC in their sequester plan. Unlike
SNAP--which, thankfully, was excluded from the sequester and every
single major deficit reduction plan--the WIC program was subjected to
the sequester. And the FY 2014 agriculture appropriations bill includes
a major cut to the WIC program.
The cuts to WIC in this bill could result in over 200,000 pregnant
mothers and infants losing access to nutritious food. And tapping into
the reserve fund isn't going to cover everyone; 55,000 moms and kids
will go without the nutrition that they need.
And WIC is so severely underfunded that the breastfeeding counseling
program--a cornerstone of this program--is zeroed out. I guess I
shouldn't be surprised that this House of Representatives would promote
such anti-women, anti-mother, anti-child legislation. After all, this
is the same House that allowed an all-male Republican majority in the
Judiciary Committee to write and promote legislation that attacked a
woman's right to choose. And by the way, President Obama is threatening
a veto of the agriculture appropriations bill in large part because of
these draconian cuts. I would say to my Republican friends: stop your
assault against poor people in this country.
Now, this agriculture appropriations bill would be bad enough on its
own. It would be better if the Appropriations Committee would redraft
the bill at pre-sequester funding levels so we're not forced to choose
between programs like food safety and WIC, for example.
But what is particularly egregious about this rule that we're
considering is what is not included. What's not included is a fix to
the upcoming doubling of the student loan interest rates. Congress is
going to leave for the 4th of July recess on Friday; yet interest rates
are scheduled to double if Congress doesn't act before July 1.
We need an immediate fix to this problem; but instead of working to
prevent penalizing millions of students who are looking for help paying
for college, the Republican leadership is forcing the House to debate
tired, retread bills like offshore drilling expansion that have no
chance of becoming law. Instead of pushing legislation that helps banks
and lenders make even more money, we ought to help the middle class, we
ought to help our students.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the comments that were just made by
the gentleman from Massachusetts about a program which does fund $6.7
billion in the WIC program and was passed unanimously by voice vote
from both parties in the Appropriations Committee.
With that, I yield 3 minutes to the sponsor of one of the bills that
is part of this rule, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I rise today in support of two of the
bills that are under this rule, H.R. 1613, the Outer Continental Shelf
Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act, and H.R. 2231,
the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act. Both these bills do three things--
they provide for jobs; they provide for energy security; and they
provide for national security.
Let's put Americans to work harvesting the resources that we have
here in this country, and let's meet our energy needs. Because as
Admiral Mullen said, there can be no national security without energy
security. Let me repeat that: there can be no national security without
energy security.
{time} 1300
Let's open up these offshore areas that we have resources under and
let's produce American energy here at home, putting Americans to work
to provide for our energy needs.
I specifically rise to talk about H.R. 1613, which implements the
Obama administration's own agreement, an agreement signed in Los Cabos
by Secretary Clinton and Foreign Minister Espinosa from Mexico that
says: Do you know what? There are resources under that shared boundary
out in the Gulf of Mexico, the boundary shared between the United
States and the country of Mexico; resources that can be explored and
produced to meet our energy needs here at home working with our
southern neighbor--Mexico--to share those resources and share the
revenues.
Let's do it the right way. Let's do it with the American safety
standards and American environmental standards that currently apply to
American energy companies producing in the Gulf of Mexico. Let's
require those Mexican companies to comply with those standards and then
let's share those revenues. This is the right thing.
H.R. 1613 will implement that agreement, but it will do something
else. It will remove the uncertainty and provide for American
competitiveness when you're competing with foreign countries such as
Mexico. This is the right thing for America. Put Americans to work,
meet energy needs, and meet our national security needs. That's why
House Republicans have focused on an all-of-the-above American energy
strategy, and these bills are part of that.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Capps).
[[Page H4052]]
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill.
The so-called Offshore Energy and Jobs Act is nothing more than
another old idea that will not become law. We have voted on a form of
this legislation every year since the majority has been in control of
this House, yet the same thing happens every time: it goes absolutely
nowhere. Instead of working on new, more sustainable energy ideas, we
find ourselves here yet again wasting our time on another misguided,
destructive, and unnecessary drilling bill.
I'm particularly dismayed that the bill, yet again, expands drilling
in areas where voters have unequivocally said they don't want it. The
devastating 1969 oil spill in Santa Barbara, California, galvanized our
State against any more offshore drilling. That's why California
permanently banned new oil and gas leasing in the State waters they
control in 1994.
This majority here, which gives lip service to respecting states'
rights, has chosen, yet again, to override the will of voters in my
district and my State by mandating immediate oil and gas lease sales
off the coasts of Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties, despite our well-
known, long-standing bipartisan opposition.
Later this week, I will be offering an amendment to strike these
provisions, and I appreciate the Rules Committee for making my
amendment in order. But expansion of drilling in southern California
only scratches the surface of what's wrong with this bill. Simply put,
it's a solution without a problem.
Drilling, both onshore and offshore, has been expanding rapidly in
recent years, and is showing no signs of slowing down. Last year,
domestic offshore oil production was higher than it was at the end of
the Bush administration. Oil production in the United States increased
more last year than at any point since the inception of the oil
industry in 1859.
The Obama administration has offered, and continues to offer,
millions of acres of public lands offshore for oil and gas exploration
and production.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman.
Mrs. CAPPS. Yet, despite this expansion under the Obama
administration, nearly 85 percent of the offshore acreage already under
lease by the oil industry is not producing. Instead of recycling bad
ideas and expanding drilling in areas where voters don't want it, we
should be working together on a responsible, clean energy policy for
the 21st century. This bill is just more of the same dirty energy
policies of the past.
I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and reject the underlying
bill.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 2\1/
2\ minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon
(Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I will have a lot to say about the deficiencies to these two bills
over the next 2 days. But today the Republicans are purporting two
things: lower gas prices and reduce the deficit. They would have us
believe this bill would do that. They're saying high gas prices are due
to the fact there's not enough offshore oil drilling.
Nothing could be further from the truth. There's actually a glut of
oil in the Gulf region. It's all waiting in storage because, oh, the
refineries are doing routine maintenance. Why are they doing that?
Well, because it's the height of the driving season for the American
people, therefore, they can gouge the consumers by pretending, oh,
there's just no other time we could clean the refinery. It doesn't have
anything to do with oil supplies. It has to do with a lack of refining
capacity artificially manipulated and speculation on Wall Street.
Secondly, they say they're addressing the deficit, that this is going
to provide additional revenues in the future. In fact, they are so
concerned about the deficit they would not allow an amendment I
attempted to offer, supported by a number of west coast Members--
three Governors of the Western United States--that would have protected
the west coast from the mandatory drilling in this bill. They said that
might preclude future revenue from future leases that might be let by a
future President, and they said we might not get $1 billion 30 years in
the future because of your amendment.
However, there is an amendment by the gentleman from Louisiana,
Representative Cassidy, who will mandate a diversion of $500 million a
year of revenues flowing to the Treasury to the Gulf States for the
next 30 years. Yes, we are going to forego or give up $15 billion of
revenues to the Treasury, creating $15 billion more debt and deficit
for the American people, but they waived the rules. That doesn't count.
This all kind of reminds me a little bit of George Orwell, the way
the Republicans cynically manipulate the rules around here. As he said:
``All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.''
So Republican amendments that create debt and deficit are exempt from
the rules, and Democratic amendments to protect the west coast, which
does not want this mandatory oil drilling, because it might forego some
potential possible future revenues, are not made in order. This is not
for real. This is not an honest process.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to realize how the
GAO's and the OMB's facts are not inaccurate and also how rules that
were waived for this bill have been waived for the same reason in prior
pieces of legislation.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous
question, I will offer an amendment to this rule that would allow the
House to hold a vote on the Student Loan Relief Act. If Congress
doesn't act by July 1, undergraduate students in this Nation, all over
this Nation, will see a hike in their student loan interest rates.
To discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the remarks by
the gentleman from Florida that we would have an opportunity to vote on
the student loan bill to make sure that we don't do what millions of
American students and their families have asked us not to do, and that
is, they don't want us to double their debt. But in less than 100 hours
if we don't get the vote that Mr. Hastings is talking about, in less
than 100 hours, millions of American college students may see their
student debt increase because of the Republican obstructionism. It's
unfortunate that it's come to this. This issue shouldn't be partisan.
It's about doing the right thing on behalf of millions of students and
their families all across the country.
It's a simple choice. We can help students achieve an education, one
that they can afford, and the skills that they need to be successful,
or we can put more hurdles in their way and increase the already
skyrocketing debt burden that students absorb as they graduate from
college.
{time} 1310
It has been more than a year of ignoring this issue. A year ago, we
were in this position, and a year ago, we voted to keep the student
loan rate at 3.75 percent. Nothing has been done until recently, and
then the Republicans came up with an idea that was really bad. It was
worse than doubling the interest rates on July 1. It was more expensive
to the students than doubling the interest rates. It's not a smart
solution. It's a terrible solution--it's terrible for students; it's
terrible for their families.
After a year of ignoring this issue, the Republicans foisted this
harmful idea onto the House floor, and when the Republican bill hit the
floor, they refused to allow a vote on a rational plan, like the
Courtney bill, that stops this doubling of the interest rates and
allows this Congress to examine and develop a long-term solution as
part of the Higher Education Reauthorization Act.
Despite trumpeting that their plan was the same as President Obama's
proposal, when the Democrats offered President Obama's actual plan,
they blocked that vote, too. So they won't keep the interest rates from
doubling,
[[Page H4053]]
and they won't do a plan that they said is just like theirs. On July 1,
those interest rates are going to double on millions of students as
they start this school year in August and September.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. The time for obstruction has passed.
It's time to keep the rates low and to work on a long-term solution.
It's time to stop asking college students and their families to bear an
unfair burden of paying down the Bush deficits.
The Democrats have chosen to stand with the students and families who
are trying to access the American Dream. We can do this. Millions of
families and students have asked us: don't double their debt. Yet, on
July 1, because of the Republican obstructionism, that's what's going
to happen to these students. It's very unfortunate. It adds an
additional $1,000 to the 4 years of college. We should not do that at
this time, in this economy, for these students and families.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield myself 1 minute.
I appreciate what has been said even though it has very little to do
with the bills that we will be discussing in these next couple of
weeks.
Especially as a former teacher, I understand significantly what it
does to student loans and situations. I understand significantly how
now 5 years ago Congress passed legislation that cut out the FFEL
Program, which actually helped kids in their being able to afford their
college workability. We consolidated all of our efforts with a program,
an idea, from the 1980s, which was a bad idea then and is a bad idea
now.
Unfortunately, this House has dealt with this issue. On May 23 of
this year, we passed a bill that solves this problem, and we sent it
over to the Senate. For some reason, I feel uncomfortable or at least
tired of being held accountable for the Senate's inability to actually
deal with legislation sent to them that solves problems and then have
to take the responsibility back here. The House has dealt with this
issue, and we did it in a responsible, reasonable way. The Senate has
refused to.
So often what we have found as gridlock here is not necessarily
between Republicans and Democrats as we pass a whole lot of bipartisan
bills on this floor. It's between the Senate and the House. I wish it
were different and that we could compel the Senate to act responsibly,
but the Senate has not and the House has.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/
2\ minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Loebsack).
Mr. LOEBSACK. I do appreciate the gentleman for yielding to me.
I rise to actually speak about an issue that I think we should be
addressing today and at this very moment.
With student loan interest rates set to rise in only 5 short days,
the time to act is now. It is unacceptable that we have not yet brought
up a bill for a vote that can be passed by both Chambers and signed
into law.
With tuition rising rapidly and with far too many families and
students struggling to make ends meet, middle class families are
finding it more and more difficult to pay for college. When I'm home
each weekend in Iowa, I hear from countless students and parents who
cannot understand why we can't seem to get this done.
This should not be a partisan issue. We need to address student loan
debt in the interest of our economy. We must prepare our students for
the kind of good-paying middle class jobs that will drive our economy
forward, and we must do so in a way that does not saddle them with a
lifetime of debt, which prevents them from fully participating in the
economy.
I could not have gone to college and would not be where I am today
without low-interest student loans and other financial assistance
programs that were available to me. It's critical that we get this done
now. I am willing to stay here and work until we get this done. We
cannot allow the House to recess and leave our students in the dust to
face this rate hike.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to a friend of mine, the distinguished gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, as the chart next to me clearly states, we
are now 4 days and counting until, by law, the interest rate for the
subsidized Stafford student loan program will double--from 3.4 percent
to 6.8 percent. The real chart should probably be 3 days because that's
how many legislative days the House and the Senate are in session.
Incredibly, we are debating issues which hardly have the same time
sensitivity and which clearly are tone deaf to what American families
all over the country are really concerned about.
There are 7.5 million college students who use the subsidized
Stafford student loan program. They are going to see their rates
double. The total gross cost in terms of added interest is about $4
billion. This is at a time when student loan debt is $1.1 trillion--
higher than credit card debt, higher than car loan debt. Incredibly,
this deadline is just being completely ignored by the majority despite
the fact that millions of students are making life decisions as we
speak as they begin to enroll for next fall's semester.
The bill which the House majority passed on May 23 is a bill which
tied rates on a variable basis to Treasury notes, which, by the way,
have been going up like crazy over the last 3 weeks and which the
Congressional Budget Office has now analyzed and told us will result in
debt costs that will be worse than if Congress did nothing and allowed
the rates to double to 6.8 percent.
The solution is obvious. Extend the lower rate, 3.4 percent. My bill,
H.R. 1595, which is the subject of the previous question, has 195
signatories for a discharge petition. A substantial group of Members in
the House is ready and poised to move. It did get 51 votes in the
Senate. It did actually move in the Senate, and the President has said
he will sign it. If there is any path forward for those 7.5 million
students, it's H.R. 1595. Let's do it. Let's act. Let's turn this
countdown clock off. Let's help America's young students afford and pay
for a critical need for their future--higher education.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would inform my colleague
from Utah that I have no further requests for time, and I would ask
whether or not he has additional speakers.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Other than brilliant verbiage from myself, you've
got it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I am looking forward to the brilliant
verbiage.
Following on from the previous discussion, Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment, which has been
discussed, in the Record along with extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 8\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself the remainder of my time.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question.
I am tempted to take the 8\1/2\ minutes and, perhaps, not offer as much
brilliant verbiage but at least add, without hyperbole, the continuing
concern that all of us should have.
I agree with my friend from Utah when he points to the fact that
there has been legislation that has come out of the House of
Representatives, regardless of who was in the majority, and that it has
gone over to the other body and nothing has transpired. But when the
American people look at Congress, they are not looking just at the
House of Representatives or just at the United States Senate--it is all
of us--and it is our responsibility here in the House, particularly as
the body that has the Ways and Means Committee, which generates the
financial circumstances of this country that ultimately is voted on.
{time} 1320
It's our responsibility, in my judgment, to undertake to answer one
simple question regarding this loan thing:
[[Page H4054]]
Why is it that college students are going to be required to have loan
obligations that raise their loans from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent when
Bank X and Bank Y can borrow money from each other for little or
nothing at all? That does not make any sense.
We can't do these children this way in this country, and we have an
absolute responsibility to all of them to give them the opportunities
that many of us had. People here in this House that have come here by
way of student loans and some of them have had those opportunities, why
not give these children that chance?
Mr. Speaker, the most common critiques of this Congress have been
bipartisanship and dysfunction. This rule today for these three bills
shows that the Speaker and majority leader are perfectly content with
that characterization of their work. Congress doesn't have to be this
way.
It isn't always like this. It wasn't like this when I came here in
1992. It was not like this for the greater portion of a decade after I
came here in 1992. Instead of appointing budget conferees, instead of
passing a farm bill in a bipartisan way, instead of fixing the pending
student loan interest rate, instead of replacing the sequester that has
been monstrously all over this Nation hindering our economic recovery
and instead of preventing us from yet another game of chicken, which we
will be doing sometime in the fall over the debt ceiling, we're
considering three purely political bills that will only create more
partisanship among us and might, I add, ain't going nowhere.
Mr. Speaker, Congress can and must do better.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I appreciate the opportunity of being part of a debate that covered a
smorgasbord of ideas. Let me just respond to several of those that have
been presented in the last lead-up to the vote on this particular
amendment.
As I said before, I'm a teacher. I care greatly about education. I'm
especially frustrated with the way Congress has passed or handled the
student loan provision.
Several years ago, while the Democrats were in control--I'm trying
not to be too partisan, but they were in control--we changed the law
that dealt with student loans to consolidate that authority within the
Federal Government. By doing so, we crushed private-State partnership
plans that were an excellent avenue for loans that students could use.
They could get breaks depending on their repayment habits. It was a
marvelous program, but it was stopped in an effort to try to
consolidate everything here within Congress. Since that time, we have
played silly games of brinksmanship that deal with what the rate should
be and what the rate might be.
We have a bill that this body passed on May 23 in plenty of time to
extinguish this issue, plenty of time for the Senate to debate it,
amend it, send it back to us, appoint the conference, go through
regular process, if the Senate wished to do that. Instead, the result
is the Senate has basically turned their back on the issue and said,
We'll let it go over the cliff one more time.
You see, it shouldn't have been that way. If we had not changed the
policy back when we passed a bill in the previous leadership of this
House, we wouldn't have had this problem in the first place. What this
House tried to do is say this is a silly approach going into the
future. Let's come up with a policy towards student loans. If we have
to consolidate them, if the Federal Government has to have their
control and grasp over the entire thing, we should do it in a way that
provides some kind of flexibility and some kind of rationalization so
it can ebb and flow in the future as the market requires it to do.
We passed a bill not just that allowed them not to double, but we
passed a bill here on this floor which solved the problem. The fact
that the Senate does not wish to solve the problem is something that I
find sad. But we solved the problem, and we did it in a timely fashion.
The great speeches that I heard today--and they were very good and
their verbiage was better than mine--should be given over in the Senate
where it can do some good.
I also want to talk about a couple of other issues that I've heard,
that these particular bills in this rule would violate states rights'
agreements, even though the issue at hand is only those waters and
coastal waters that are a part of the Federal preserve and does not
talk about State waters whatsoever.
We talked about in H.R. 1613 a poison pill being inserted into that
provision that exempts Dodd-Frank. Somehow I wish we could actually go
back to the person who actually inserted that provision in there
because it was Secretary Hillary Clinton. That's part of the
negotiations we did as a country with the Mexican Government; and it's
logical that it is in there because it gives some protection to U.S.
companies that, if that language was not in there, could be forced
either to violate Federal laws or violate foreign laws and face civil
penalties or cease to operate in foreign countries.
I can understand why the Secretary of State at the time did negotiate
that portion that is in there. That's not the poison pill. That's
simply what is in the negotiated settlement. All we're doing with this
bill is enacting it, putting it into place, and allowing us to move
forward with what has been simply negotiated on resource areas that
straddle international lines.
I'm also somewhat frustrated with the statement that we might as well
use the leases that we currently have. I'm also frustrated because we
have had a great deal of increase in production of oil and gas, and
it's all happened on private and State lands.
I happen to represent a State that has almost 70 percent of it
controlled by the Federal Government. I have enormous amounts of
resource potential in my State, but it is controlled by the Federal
Government. So even though areas where private property and States have
been able to increase the revenue to their States and increase the
total amount of petroleum productions that we have, my State has seen
the exact opposite.
If you go onshore to the areas that are controlled by this
administration, the Federal lands, the amount of parcels that have been
offered since 2005 are down 88 percent. The amount of acres that are
offered for development of resources are down 85 percent. And what is
most sad is the amount of revenue that is produced both to the State
and to the Federal Government from onshore development since 2005,
which is down 99 percent.
A lease is simply not, as has been stated, the green light to start
drilling. A release simply says you start the process. And part of the
problem with the releases both onshore and offshore has been the
inability of the Federal Government to do so in a reasonable fashion.
On onshore lease development there is regulation that says it must be
done in a 6-month period of time to move forward from the initial sale
and to which the lease is then offered so the company can start its
drilling process. Yet in a survey done by GAO, 91 percent of the time,
that 6-month standard has not been met onshore.
Part of H.R. 2231 is a reorganization of the administrative function
that deals with how these leases are developed and how they proceed
going forward. By taking one agency, which has had a very poor record
and dividing it into three with specific responsibilities, we think we
can streamline this process and make sure that what we are doing on the
Outer Continental Shelf is far more effective than what we are doing on
Federal lands onshore, where all we are having is stalling delays and a
lack of production and a lack of revenue coming from them.
It was once said to the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee
that if he had a better idea, do it. In all due respect, he has a
better idea. That better idea is the two bills before us right now,
H.R. 2231, and the other bill, which is H.R. 1613. Those are good
ideas. They will move us forward. They're the things we ought to do to
prepare.
I think it's a great rule that is allowing that and allowing the
appropriation bill to come through in an open rule, allowing anyone who
has an idea that he or she wishes to bring to the floor the opportunity
to do so.
With that, this is a fair rule. It deals with an appropriations
process, as well as two bills that are good bills that
[[Page H4055]]
will help people. Especially after yesterday's speech, we should have
an energy policy in this country aimed at helping middle class
Americans, not one that simply says, freeze in the dark, especially if
you're poor. That's the best thing we are going to be able to do.
{time} 1330
These bills move us forward. We should vote for them. With that,
having failed at my effort to give you good verbiage, in which case I'm
sorry you're holding the cane there, I hope you're using that only to
navigate around this floor and it will not become a weapon in the
future.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 274 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 8. 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.
1595) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend the
reduced interest rate for Federal Direct Stafford Loans. 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 Education and
the Workforce. 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. 9. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 595 as specified in section 8 of this
resolution.
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. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move
the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. 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 228,
nays 194, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 289]
YEAS--228
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
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
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
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 (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
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--194
Andrews
Barber
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
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
[[Page H4056]]
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
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)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
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
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--12
Clarke
Fincher
Johnson, E. B.
Maloney, Carolyn
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McMorris Rodgers
Nadler
Neugebauer
Sessions
Smith (WA)
Watt
{time} 1357
Messrs. PERLMUTTER, HIGGINS, GENE GREEN of Texas, and VELA and Ms.
DUCKWORTH changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent, Mrs. Capito was allowed to speak out of
order.)
Women's Congressional Softball Game
Mrs. CAPITO. To my colleagues, tonight is a very exciting night for
the women of the House, the women's softball team of the House--and the
men of the House, and really all families across America--for our fifth
annual women's softball team. Our game is tonight at 7 o'clock at
Watkins Field.
I am the cocaptain of the team with my esteemed colleague from
Florida. And we have trouble agreeing on a lot of things, but I know
everybody in this room today will want us to win because our opponents
are the press.
So I want to just briefly say thank you to everybody who's been
involved in this. We've had a lot of great coaches and we've had a lot
of outside help. We've had a lot of fun getting to know each other
again and even better.
I'd like to yield to my cocaptain who hatched this idea and have her
talk a little bit about why we're doing this.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much to my cocaptain, the
gentlelady from West Virginia, and to all of our sisters on the
Congressional Women's Softball team.
The gentlelady from West Virginia is absolutely right; we may not
always agree in the boundaries and walls of this room, but I think all
of us can agree that we want to defeat the common adversary--that is,
the press corps.
We have been out there for the last 2 months at 7 in the morning two
or three times a week. None of us can believe that we actually all get
out there at the crack of dawn to make sure that we can build our
skills, build camaraderie, make sure that we come together around a
true common purpose. We also thank our adversaries, whom we will defeat
tonight when we take the field and make sure that we take the trophy
back for the women Members.
We've only won one out of the last four games, but the fifth time is
a charm. This is the fifth annual game. It happens to coincide with my
own 5-year anniversary of being a survivor of breast cancer. And the
importance of this game is really that we all are focused on raising
money for an incredible charity, the Young Survival Coalition. We are
headed for a record-breaking fundraising year.
I want to thank the majority whip in particular for making sure that
the schedule accommodated everybody coming to the game. This is going
to be a fun family event. Bring your kids. We have face painting and a
fun zone and all kinds of food and a great time. We have already
presold more than 1,000 tickets before we even get to the door.
So thank you so much. Come cheer on the women Members tonight at 7
o'clock, Watkins Recreation Center, 12th and D Southeast. Take the
Eastern Market or Potomac Avenue Metro.
On to victory for the Congressional Women's Softball team.
Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will
continue.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235,
nays 187, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 290]
YEAS--235
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
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
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)
Grayson
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 (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (CA)
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Velazquez
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--187
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
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
[[Page H4057]]
Garcia
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
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)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
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
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--12
Clarke
Fincher
Johnson, E. B.
Maloney, Carolyn
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
Nadler
Neugebauer
Smith (WA)
Watt
{time} 1409
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Personal Explanation
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 289 on Ordering
the Previous Question, H. Res. 274, A resolution providing for the
consideration of H.R. 1613--Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary
Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act, H.R. 2231--Offshore Energy
and Jobs Act, and H.R. 2410--Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014, I
am not recorded because I was absent due to a death in the family. Had
I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 290 on Agreeing to the Resolution, H.
Res. 274, A resolution providing for the consideration of H.R. 1613--
Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements
Authorization Act, H.R. 2231--Offshore Energy and Jobs Act, and H.R.
2410--Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014, I am not recorded because I
was absent due to a death in the family. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``yea.''
____________________