[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 97 (Tuesday, July 9, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H4224-H4230]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2609, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 
             AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 288 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 288

       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. 2609) making appropriations for energy and 
     water development and related agencies 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. 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 
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. BURGESS. 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 Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. House Resolution 288 provides for an open rule for 
consideration of H.R. 2609, making appropriations for energy and water 
development and related agencies for fiscal year 2014.
  This rule contains the tradition reinstated by the Republican 
majority in the last Congress that appropriations bills should come to 
the floor in a manner that allows every Member of the House, both 
Republican and Democrat, to amend those bills and to have their voices 
heard.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying 
bill, making appropriations for the Department of Energy and the United 
States Corps of Engineers. The bill provides for $30.4 billion for 
these agencies, which is $2.9 billion below fiscal year '13 enacted and 
$4.1 billion below the President's request, at a time of fiscal 
constraint, when government, like our constituents, must make tough 
choices on where to smartly spend the money the American taxpayers have 
trusted it to oversee.
  The bill provides critical funding for our energy needs, making $450 
million available for advanced coal, natural gas, oil and fossil fuel 
technologies. Moreover, the bill provides $5.5 billion for 
environmental cleanup activities, funds to safely clean sites 
contaminated by nuclear weapons production.
  The underlying bill before us has been carefully crafted by the 
Appropriations Committee under the leadership of Chairman Rogers, 
Ranking Member Lowey, Subcommittee Chairman Frelinghuysen, and 
Subcommittee Ranking Member Kaptur.
  Funding for energy programs is cut by $1.4 billion, while 
simultaneously prioritizing funds to advance our goal of an all-of-the-
above solution to energy independence.
  Further, the House continues its commitment to achieve a long-term 
storage facility for nuclear waste, providing support activities in 
support of the opening of Yucca Mountain, a solution long overdue.
  The House energy and water bill furthers this majority's commitment 
to spending taxpayer money wisely, cutting waste and inefficiencies 
wherever they may be.
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the 
underlying legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

[[Page H4225]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill, H.R. 2609, 
the fiscal year 2014 Energy and Water Appropriations Act.
  Having this bill on the floor this week is another example of how we, 
as a body, our Congress, has its priorities wrong. It's why Congress 
has an approval rating of 12 percent.
  Rather than fixing our broken immigration system and replacing it 
with one that works for our country, rather than doing something about 
the fact that student loan rates just doubled for students that are 
incurring new loans, here we are sacrificing our renewable energy 
future while simultaneously increasing spending for new and unneeded 
nuclear weapons far above even the sequestration level of funding.

                              {time}  1230

  It's no wonder this institution has the disapproval rating that it 
does.
  This legislation is fundamentally flawed. It underfunds programs that 
not only grow our Nation's clean energy sources but also create jobs, 
promote emerging technologies, and maintain critical infrastructure. 
Yet, while making these cuts, it increases weapons activities by $97.7 
million above the 2013 enacted levels. Here we have a bill that 
prioritizes unnecessary weapons and defense programs at the expense of 
our Nation's innovation and international competitiveness.
  The underlying bill slashes program funding for a valuable program 
called the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E. 
Yesterday, in our Rules Committee, both the ranking member and the 
subcommittee chair agreed that they were fans of this critical program; 
yet it cuts funding by $215 million below last year's funding level. 
ARPA-E was modeled after DARPA, the Department of Defense's Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency, which has led to so many great, 
innovative technologies that improve our security as a country. In its 
few short years of existence, ARPA-E has funded 285 projects in 33 
States that promise to transform the energy future for our country.
  ARPA-E's rigorous program design and competitive project selection 
process show that our taxpayer dollars are being used wisely, and the 
program has paid off. Since 2009, at least 17 ARPA-E programs have 
leveraged the government's small initial investment of approximately 
$70 million into what is typically $500,000, $1 million, or up to $2 
million in private sector capital.
  I was a founder of several startup companies before I came to 
Congress, and I understand the value of risk-taking and the role the 
government has in promoting innovation in basic technology. I represent 
a district with two major research universities that receive a combined 
Federal research investment of about $700 million. Many of these basic 
technologies which we as a country invest in lead to the jobs and the 
companies and the consumer technologies of the future. And what could 
be more critical than putting our Nation on a path to sustainable 
energy development?
  Just this last February, I met with an ARPA-E project team from my 
district. Within the first year of receiving ARPA-E funding, this 
University of Colorado project team has demonstrated important energy 
yield improvements and cost-reducing potential in solar photovoltaic 
power systems. That's an example of an ARPA-E project that will help 
boost our economic well-being as a country and lead to our energy 
independence and national security far more than a few more unneeded 
nuclear missiles.
  My colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that this program is 
essential to protecting our energy future; and that's why this program, 
ARPA-E, has been lauded by Democrats and Republicans alike, as it was 
in our Rules Committee yesterday evening.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill also disproportionately cuts from science and 
clean energy programs while bolstering wasteful spending for fossil 
fuel subsidies, continuing to have our country subsidize oil and gas, 
to subsidizing nuclear weapons, while making cuts in our energy future. 
By maintaining these fossil fuel subsidies while cutting clean energy 
research, we're prioritizing fossil fuels over innovative technologies 
that actually hold the key to our clean, sustainable energy 
independence.
  While I appreciate that this bill has some decreases to the amount of 
Federal subsidies going to the fossil fuel accounts compared to last 
year--and I think it's high time that we end these subsidies to one of 
America's most profitable industries--the report language from the 
committee seems to be searching for a reason to spend our precious 
taxpayer dollars at a time of sequestration and at a time of deficits. 
How can we spend more on fossil fuels when we should be spending less?
  In addition, this bill needlessly increases the funding for weapons 
activities and defense programs at a time when we're winding down our 
involvement in two wars that have been very costly in lives and dollars 
in this last decade. That's why I'm offering an amendment with 
Representative Quigley that would reduce the B61 Life Extension Program 
back to the agency's request level, which would save $23.7 million in 
taxpayer dollars and reduce the deficit. This bill actually increases 
funding by over $20 million for these ongoing missile programs in an 
era where Americans should expect our government to be more transparent 
about how this money is invested.
  While some of these missiles represent a strategic commitment we have 
to our NATO allies, there have been growing concerns raised by the Air 
Force's own Blue Ribbon Review Panel about the effectiveness and 
security vulnerabilities of the B61. That's why the price for this 
program has continued to rise dramatically and confidence in the 
missile program has dropped. In fact, some of our NATO allies, like 
Germany, have actually called for the B61s to be removed from their 
borders.
  Again, given our fiscal constraints, it's a time of choices. It's not 
to have it all, but I think we need to ensure that taxpayer money is 
not wasted on programs that fail to sufficiently protect our national 
security and that in fact some of our allies don't even support.
  Another unneeded increase in this funding bill, throwing more 
government money after more government money, is for the W76 Life 
Extension Program. The current bill requests $248 million--$13 million 
more than the administration requested--because of a fear of a lack of 
nuclear deterrence capability if we reduce our stockpile below the 
levels required in the New START Treaty. To put that in perspective, 
the START Treaty requires us to have no more than 1,550 nuclear 
weapons. Isn't that enough, Mr. Speaker? How many times can we 
completely obliterate not only our enemies but the entire world with 
1,500 weapons?
  Even this lower stockpile of nuclear weapons is, frankly, a relic of 
our foreign policy during the Cold War and can be drastically reduced. 
Unfortunately, this bill increased it. In fact, the Arms Control 
Association identified over $39 billion in savings to the taxpayer if 
it reduced our nuclear weapons stockpile to 1,000 nuclear weapons--more 
than enough to deter any threat to the United States, more than enough 
to obliterate humanity from the planet. We can save $39 billion by 
going down to 1,000 nuclear weapons.
  These are some of the many reasons why I oppose the underlying bill. 
I'm very supportive of this rule coming forward from our committee that 
will allow for a full and open debate. I hope that many of these ideas 
that I have presented, as well as other ideas from Members on both 
sides of the aisle, will prevail so the end work product of this House 
is something that Democrats and Republicans can join together in 
supporting--something that no longer sacrifices our renewable energy 
future for yet more and more nuclear weapons today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I do feel obligated to point out that the object under discussion 
currently is the rule that will allow us to debate the energy and water 
appropriations bill. The rule is an open rule. If the gentleman has 
disagreements with the language in the underlying bill, it's an open 
rule. He's free to bring those amendments to the floor, have a full and 
fair debate, both sides, one opposed, one in support; and the will of

[[Page H4226]]

the House will prevail. That is the way it should be under an open 
rule.
  Let me just state that I have, for the record, amendments that I will 
be placing before the House. I hope they're accepted, but I will accept 
the underlying bill even in the absence of those amendments. And I hope 
the gentleman from Colorado will approach it in a similar spirit.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I was going to comment to the gentleman that the committee 
work product, the bill before us, is a highly flawed bill. I certainly 
hope that the open process and the will of the House will significantly 
alter and improve upon this bill. We will find that out in the days 
ahead.
  It is my honor, Mr. Speaker, to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California, a former colleague on the Rules Committee 
(Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, my district of Sacramento is one of the leading clean 
energy economies in the country. The sharp cuts to clean energy 
initiatives in this bill are deeply troubling. It will no doubt hurt 
American innovation and American jobs, particularly as other nations 
continue to invest in clean energy technologies. It is also not 
reflective of an all-of-the-above energy strategy that our Nation 
desperately needs.
  At the same time, this bill addresses some of the important flood 
protection priorities for my district. Sacramento is the most at-risk 
metropolitan area for major flooding, as it lies at the confluence of 
the American and Sacramento Rivers. We have a great deal at risk. As 
the home of the State capital and half a million people, a major flood 
event in Sacramento would have economic damages of up to $40 billion.
  I am pleased that this bill includes nearly $70 million in funding 
for Sacramento's flood protection priorities, including more than $66 
million to continue construction on the Folsom Dam Joint Federal 
Project. In addition, this bill includes report language, which I 
requested, expressing concern with the Corps' current levee vegetation 
policy. Sacramento is ground zero for the impact of the Corps' 
vegetation policy. Instead of a one-size-fits-all solution, the Corps 
should consider regional variances and local input, as called for under 
bipartisan legislation I introduce in H.R. 399, the Levee Vegetation 
Review Act.
  The bill also includes report language that I also requested 
expressing concern with the Corps' decision to end its section 104 
crediting policy, which has halted flood protection projects from 
moving forward, particularly one in west Sacramento.
  Mr. Speaker, moving forward, we must also be cognizant that there are 
other much-needed public safety projects that remain unfunded and 
unbuilt due to a lack of a WRDA bill. We urgently need to improve 
America's crumbling levee infrastructure. In Sacramento, my 
constituents have taxed themselves twice and $350 million of 
construction work is well under way for the Natomas Levee Improvement 
Project, all while awaiting congressional authorization for over 2 
years after receiving a chief's report from the Army Corps of 
Engineers.
  Mr. Speaker, on May 15 the Senate passed a robust WRDA bill with 
clear bipartisan support of 83-14. It is my sincere hope that the House 
will soon follow suit. We cannot wait until the next disaster takes 
lives and wrecks our economy. This is a bipartisan issue that must be 
addressed immediately in Congress.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I want to respond to something that was said in the initial opening 
by the minority. The student loan bill passed this House over a month 
ago. It has been sitting in the Senate for the entire month of June. 
The problem with student loans could have been addressed by the other 
body. It could have been addressed prior to the July 1 deadline, which 
was a deadline, after all, that the Democrats had set when they were in 
the majority.
  So to say that the House has not done its work is in fact not 
correct. The House has done its work. We await the other body to act.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  To further address the student loan issue, this body did pass a bill 
to prevent the increase in the student loan rates that just occurred. 
However, that bill--a very similar bill--failed in the Senate. So the 
Kline bill failed in the Senate. So, too, a Democratic bill to provide 
a 2-year extension of the student loan rates also failed in the Senate.
  So at this point, the victims of all this are students in our country 
who are going back to school and will be forced to borrow at twice the 
rate--6.8 percent--if Congress can't get its act together. And that's 
why if we defeat the previous question, I'll offer an amendment to the 
rule to bring up H.R. 2574, the Keeping Student Loans Affordable Act, 
sponsored by Representative George Miller, Representative Ruben 
Hinojosa, myself, and several others, which would undue the recent 
doubling of student loan interest rates.
  It's that simple. While we work towards a market-oriented solution 
along the parameters President Obama has spelled out, making sure we 
have the protections in place like caps for students everywhere, we 
need to at least make sure that students returning to school this fall 
are not borrowing at a rate twice the rate of last year.
  To discuss this bill, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hinojosa), my colleague on the Education and Workforce Committee.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support 
H.R. 2574, entitled Keeping Student Loans Affordable Act of 2013, 
legislation that would extend and fully pay for an additional year of 
the 3.4 percent interest rate on subsidized Federal direct Stafford 
loans.
  Given that millions of students and families are struggling to afford 
the skyrocketing cost of a college education, it's shocking to me that 
this Congress allowed interest rates to double on July 1. I'm afraid 
that this Republican-majority Congress is making college more expensive 
for millions of students. With student debt surpassing $3 trillion, 
another increase of $1,000 of debt would be damaging to millions of 
student already struggling to afford basic expenses like rent and food.

                              {time}  1245

  The student loan debt crisis is crushing the dreams and aspirations 
of students and college graduates. High levels of debt are creating 
obstacles for young people who hope to start a family, purchase a home, 
and save for retirement. At this rate, they cannot accomplish those 
standard goals that every American should be able to achieve.
  In my view, student loan debt sets our country backward, not forward. 
Without Congress' swift action, more than 7 million low- and moderate-
income students working towards a college degree will have to pay an 
additional $1,000 for each loan that they borrow.
  The Keep Student Loans Affordable Act of 2013 will secure low 
interest rates for an additional year as Congress works on a long-term 
and sustainable approach for the Federal student loan program that 
works for both students and taxpayers.
  Importantly, this bill will help ensure that college remains within 
reach for students who rely on Federal loans to pay for their 
education. In stark contrast, the GOP student loan plan is 
irresponsible and puts students in a yearly-adjustable student loan, 
which will result in great unpredictability and skyrocketing costs. 
What's more, the GOP bills add more debt onto students, even more than 
the doubling of the interest rates.
  In a globally competitive economy, an education is clearly a 
necessity. This Congress should be helping students afford a college 
education, not saddling them with student loan debt.
  As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and 
Workforce Training, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
do what is right and pass H.R. 2574 to reverse the student loan rate 
increase.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.
  Again, if I recall correctly, the bill that the gentleman from Texas 
just referenced has only Democratic sponsors. It is not a bipartisan 
bill.
  The other body, completely controlled by Democrats in the majority, 
has within its power to pass a bill, conference with the Republican-
passed bill

[[Page H4227]]

here in the House, and work out the problem. They have failed to do so.
  The House has done its work. The House-passed bill was received in 
the Senate on the 3rd of June. It has been there for over a month. The 
other body certainly has within its power to act.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Again, to respond to that, the bill that the House passed 
failed in the United States Senate. So, too, did a 2-year delay in 
keeping the student loan rates low; that has failed in the Senate. So 
we can simply say, oh, we're just not going to do anything and let 
student loan rates double, or we can take it upon ourselves in this 
body to try to find a new way. That's what the Democrats and Ranking 
Member Miller have put forward, a way to say, look, we couldn't agree 
on 2 years, we couldn't agree on a long-term solution. Let's give us a 
1-year window where the kids coming back to school in a month aren't 
going to be borrowing at twice the rate that they were last year.
  We have the chief sponsor of the bill here to speak about it. Mr. 
Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As we debate this rule, it has now been a little over a week since 
interest rates on loans for millions of the neediest college students 
doubled thanks to Republican obstructionism. With that doubling, those 
who can afford it least will continue to be burdened under a mountain 
of debt with no end in sight. Because Congress has not acted in a 
responsible way, this rate increase will cost borrowers an additional 
$1,000 per student per loan.
  The doubling of interest rates did not have to happen. Rather than 
making it more affordable for students and families to pay for college, 
House Republicans decided to pass a bill that would make college more 
expensive.
  The bill was dead on arrival in the Senate. It was dead on arrival in 
the Senate because it was worse for students than the doubling of the 
interest rates, and it left the students without an option other than 
the doubling of the interest rates. That's why we must act today. We 
must defeat the previous question so that we can deliberate this and 
get a solution until we can work on a long-term, bipartisan agreement 
on this one.
  The Republican plan that passed the House was totally irresponsible. 
It was simply not a smart solution. It has been advertised by my 
friends on the other side as a long-term fix, but we all know the 
truth. The Republican bill adds more debt onto the students, even more 
than doubling the interest rates.
  The Republican bill also puts students in a yearly-adjustable student 
loan, which will result in great unpredictability and soaring loan 
costs to the students and to their families. And the insistence from 
the GOP that the students pay down the national debt is outrageous and 
offensive.
  The student loan program is a program that the Federal Government 
makes $50 billion off the back of the students, and the Republicans' 
response is that the students should pay higher interest rates so they 
can pay down the national deficit. The student loan program itself is 
paying down the national deficit because of the profit the Federal 
Government makes. It's time to stop that and make student loans 
affordable for students and for their families.
  This Congress simply has not done right by students. They are forcing 
these students to continue to graduate with an increasing mountain of 
debt while, at the same time, they lament that students are graduating 
with increased debt.
  That's what the Republicans offered. That's why, as my colleague from 
Colorado said, it was dead on arrival when it went to the Senate. It 
was dead on a bipartisan basis when it went to the Senate.
  The time has come now to defeat the previous question so that we can 
bring the 1-year fix to make sure that students are protected from the 
doubling of the interest rate that is now occurring because of the 
inaction by the Republicans in the House of Representatives.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, again, just a bit of a history lesson.
  In 2007, Democratically-controlled House, Democratically-controlled 
Senate passed the student loan rates. They built into the law an 
expiration date of last July. Last July, a 1-year extension was passed. 
This year, the Republican House passed a responsible extension. The 
Senate, the other body, needs to do its work. When they do, we're here 
to talk.
  I now wish to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton).
  (Mr. BARTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for the energy 
and water appropriation bill.
  This, historically, has been one of the first appropriation bills 
brought to the floor. I'd like to inform the Members that, as is the 
practice of the Republicans in the majority, it's an open rule, and 
there are a number of amendments that will be made. It's my 
understanding that any individual who wishes to offer an amendment can 
come to the floor and do so.

  The bill is coming in at $30.4 billion, which is $2.9 billion below 
fiscal 2013 enacted and $4 billion below the President's request, so 
the Appropriations Committee is operating in compliance with the House 
budget that we passed several months ago.
  This is a good rule. It's a good bill. I would hope that we can 
support the rule and obviously support the bill.
  I would like to also add an editorial comment on the student loan 
rate issue.
  Obviously, we want those interest rates to be as low as possible. But 
I would point out to my friends on the other side of the aisle that the 
House passed a bill; it's waiting to be brought up in the other body. 
They can bring it up tomorrow and vote it, send it to the President for 
his signature.
  Apparently, the great sin in the House-passed bill appears to be that 
it moves towards an adjustable rate interest rate as opposed to a fixed 
rate that is below market rates. We would all like to have zero percent 
interest, obviously.
  Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON. I'm told you have all kinds of time, so I will not yield, 
but I appreciate you wanting to ask me to.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  I thank the gentleman. I just know that there have been less speakers 
on the other side, and I was hoping that we might be able to use some 
of the ``all kinds of time'' in a bipartisan way.
  The gentleman from Texas was not accurate in saying that the House 
bill awaits action in the Senate. It had a vote in the Senate; it did 
not pass. So, too, a 2-year extension did not reach the cloture vote.
  So, again, here we are. We can either start blaming each other--the 
folks on the other side of the building--or we can actually do 
something and get to work to keep student loan rates low for America's 
college students.
  And of course Democrats are open to tying something into market-based 
rates; President Obama even proposed such. So, if that's what the 
gentleman wants to do, let's engage in a discussion about that. In the 
meantime, let's pass a 1-year extension so the rates don't double--
which they already did 2 weeks ago--when the kids come back to school 
in the fall.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a leader on this issue and a colleague of 
mine on the Education and the Workforce Committee.
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for the time.
  A lot of American families are getting their financial aid notices 
for the new academic year. Much to their chagrin, they're opening these 
envelopes and finding out that the student loan that cost them 3.4 
percent last year is going to cost them 6.8 percent starting this year. 
This is a huge problem for the millions of American families who borrow 
money to educate their children or themselves.
  Now, what Congress has produced on this thus far is blame and finger-
pointing. So here's what happened:
  The Republican majority passed a bill on this floor that actually 
made the problem worse, that actually would cost more than just going 
up to the 6.8

[[Page H4228]]

percent by about $4,000 per student over a 5-year period. They actually 
poured kerosine on the fire. They sent that bill over to the Senate. 
The Senate rejected the bill and didn't pass anything else.
  Now, I regret all of that, but, ladies and gentlemen, we have two 
choices in front of us today. We can quit on the issue and quit on 
America's students, or we can try to do something about it. I think we 
should try to do something about it. Here's the something:
  Mr. Miller has a proposal that would keep the rates at 3.4 percent 
for 1 more year. It would pay for this and not add a dime to the 
deficit by closing a tax loophole that exists for fairly wealthy 
people. Our proposal is we should put that bill on the floor and take a 
vote on it. I hope that a majority of Members would vote ``yes'' to 
help American students in this way, but we're not even requiring that. 
We're simply saying that what we should do this afternoon on this floor 
is put that proposal up for a vote.
  In a couple of minutes, we're going to take a vote on whether to take 
a vote on that question. Now, as is often the case around here, the 
rules are a little backward. Those who vote ``no'' on the next vote are 
voting in favor of bringing this up so that Congress can work its will. 
Those who vote ``yes'' are saying we should not do that.
  The choice is clear: we either take a vote and try to fix this 
problem, or we quit on America's students and America's families. Let's 
do our job and take a vote on this bill.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from the other side as to 
whether or not they have additional speakers?
  Mr. POLIS. We're not aware of any at this time. There might be one 
more coming, but if they're not here, I'm prepared to close.
  Mr. BURGESS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, we wonder why this body has an approval rating of 12 percent. 
Instead of tackling issues that Americans want us to tackle--like 
finally fixing our broken immigration system, which, by the way, a bill 
received more than two-thirds support in the Senate, Democrats and 
Republicans. It's hard to get two-thirds of anybody to agree on 
anything, and yet 70 percent of Americans support comprehensive 
immigration reform, two-thirds of the United States Senate. Let's bring 
that bill up and pass it.
  Student loans? Sure, we can cast blame on the Senate. We can cast 
blame on whomever we feel like. But the fact is American families are 
borrowing at 6.8 percent instead of 3.4 percent--now, this fall, 
student loans. So we can either just say, okay, it's not our fault, we 
passed something, let's go home, or we can actually try to reach a 
solution.
  If we can defeat the previous question today, we can bring 
Representative Miller's bill right to the floor to allow a 1-year 
window for Congress to work this out and keep the student loan rate at 
3.4 percent and prevent our next generation of college kids from having 
their backs broken under the weight of high-interest student loans.
  Mr. Speaker, with regard to this bill--again, not the bill that 
America wants us to be discussing; instead, a bill that cuts our 
renewable energy future, puts even more money into nuclear weapons--I 
can't support this committee report on the energy and water spending 
bill. I hope that through this process the will of the House changes 
this bill dramatically. If not, then we're simply making the wrong 
decisions for our energy future.
  The bill slashes critical funding that would create jobs, grow our 
economy, lead to energy security, and increase our competitiveness. At 
the same time, the bill adds spending to increase our nuclear weapons 
stockpiles.

                              {time}  1300

  How can we expect to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of 
terrorists if we cut the nuclear nonproliferation activities by $600 
million under this bill?
  While the bill increases funding for our weapons programs and 
continues funding for fossil fuel subsidies, it guts many of our 
renewable energy programs, like ARPA-E, the Department of Energy's 
Office of Science, and investing in the Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.
  This bill threatens to increase our reliance on foreign oil, reduce 
job growth, increase pollution, and damage the health of American 
families. If we don't act to reverse this legislation's deep cuts to 
science programs and energy research, the United States will have many, 
many missiles armed with nuclear warheads, but we will fall behind our 
global competitors who are investing heavily in renewable and next-
generation energy technologies.
  I strongly urge that we defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' 
vote on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I cannot recall a place in the Constitution where it says the House 
passes a bill, the Senate can't pass it, so the House comes back and 
tries to find a better bill that maybe the Senate will now take up. 
Boy, I wish that had happened on that health care stuff back in 2009 
and 2010. We would have a lot better world today.
  But the fact of the matter is, the House has passed the student loan 
bill and the Senate has the obligation to act. The deadline of July 1 
was, in fact, provided to us by a funding cliff that the Democrats 
enacted back in 2007 when they started this process.
  The deadline was self-imposed by a Democratic majority in the House 
of Representatives and a Democratic majority in the Senate. Democrats 
in the other body are fully aware of that deadline, we are fully aware 
of that deadline, and they were the ones that let it lapse. The House 
had done its work. They were fully capable of passing something and 
sending it back to us so that it could either be passed or adjusted 
prior to the July 4 recess.
  In regards to the legislation we are currently considering, we do 
continue the Republican commitment to maintaining an open and 
transparent nature to the appropriations process. This rule balances 
our commitment to energy independence and national security with good 
stewardship of taxpayer money.
  I want to, again, commend Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Lowey, 
Chairman Frelinghuysen, and Ranking Member Kaptur for working together 
to craft a bill that balances our spending priorities with our concerns 
over the deficit and our climbing national debt.
  At this point, I ask for an ``aye'' on the previous question and an 
``aye'' on the underlying resolution.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 288 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       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. 
     2574) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend the 
     current reduced interest rate for undergraduate Federal 
     Direct Stafford Loans for 1 year, to modify required 
     distribution rules for pension plans, 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 among and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means and 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. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 2574.


        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

[[Page H4229]]

     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. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 288, if 
ordered, and approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 182, not voting 32, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 308]

                               YEAS--220

     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)
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     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
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     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
     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)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     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 (IN)

                               NAYS--182

     Andrews
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     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
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     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, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     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
     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--32

     Barber
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Campbell
     Davis, Danny
     Franks (AZ)
     Gosar
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kirkpatrick
     McCarthy (NY)
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Moore
     Moran
     Negrete McLeod
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Posey
     Rangel
     Rogers (KY)
     Salmon
     Schweikert
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sinema
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1331

  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in a meeting in my 
office and didn't make it to the floor before the gavel came down for 
the first vote (rollcall Vote 308) in this series. I did vote for the 
subsequent rollcall votes in this series. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``yes.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 308, I was at the White 
House for a discussion on U.S. economy. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``no.''
  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.

[[Page H4230]]

  Mr. BURGESS. 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 226, 
nays 178, not voting 30, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 309]

                               YEAS--226

     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)
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     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
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     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
     Maffei
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     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
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--178

     Andrews
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     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
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     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
     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--30

     Barber
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Campbell
     Franks (AZ)
     Gardner
     Gosar
     Hastings (WA)
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kirkpatrick
     McCarthy (NY)
     Meadows
     Moore
     Negrete McLeod
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Rangel
     Rogers (KY)
     Salmon
     Schweikert
     Shimkus
     Sinema
     Yoho
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1340

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Speaker, I was absent for the following vote. Had I 
been present, I would have voted as follows: ``yes'' on adoption of the 
rule for Energy and Water Appropriations.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to participate in the 
following votes. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows:
  Rollcall vote 308: on ordering the previous question to H. Res. 288--
I would have voted ``aye.''
  Rollcall vote 309: on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 288--I would 
have voted ``aye.''
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding my absence from the 
House for votes on the afternoon of July 9, 2013. I was unfortunately 
absent due to a medical appointment. I would like to submit how I would 
have voted had I been in attendance for the following votes:
  Rollcall No. 308, on the motion on ordering the previous question on 
the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2609, I would have voted 
``no.''
  Rollcall No. 309, on agreeing to the resolution (H. Res. 288), I 
would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________