[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 98 (Wednesday, July 10, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H4322-H4336]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2014
General Leave
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on further consideration of
H.R. 2609, and that I may include tabular material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 288 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2609.
Will the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding) kindly take the
chair.
{time} 1235
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2609) making appropriations for energy and water
development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2014, and for other purposes, with Mr. Holding (Acting Chair) in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday,
July 9, 2013, a request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered by
the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus) had been postponed and the bill
had been read through page 60, line 12.
Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Burgess
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used--
(1) to implement or enforce section 430.32(x) of title 10,
Code of Federal Regulations; or
(2) to implement or enforce the standards established by
the tables contained in section 325(i)(1)(B) of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(B)) with
respect to BPAR incandescent reflector lamps, BR incandescent
reflector lamps, and ER incandescent reflector lamps.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, in this House, in 2007, a bill was passed
called the Energy Independence and Security Act. One of the features of
this bill was to take away consumer choice when deciding which light
bulbs our constituents could use in their own homes. Since that time, I
have heard from literally tens of thousands of people on the inequities
of this provision. Mr. Chairman, they're right.
While the government has passed energy-efficiency standards in other
realms over the years, they have never moved so far and lowered
standards so drastically to a point where at this date, over 5 years,
the technology is still years off in making light bulbs that are
compliant with the 2007 law and at a price point that the average
American can afford.
Last year, light bulb companies talked about their new 2007 law-
compliant bulbs that are available now, but they're available at price
points of $20, $30, $40, and $50 each bulb.
Opponents to my amendment will claim that the 2007 language does not
ban the incandescent bulb. This is true. It bans the sale of the 100-
watt, the 60-watt, and the 45-watt bulbs. The replacement bulbs are far
from economically efficient, even if they are energy efficient. A
family living paycheck to paycheck can't afford to replace every bulb
in their house at $25 a bulb, even if those bulbs will last 20 years.
This Congress should be on the side of the consumer and on the side
of consumer choice. If the new energy-efficient light bulbs save money
and if they're better for the environment, we should trust our
constituents to make the choice on their own toward these bulbs. Let
the market decide. We should not be forcing these light bulbs on the
American people. The bottom line is the Federal Government has no
business taking away the freedom of choice from Americans as to what
type of light bulbs to use in their homes.
The columnist, George Will, speaking on a television program back in
December of 2007, describing the efforts of the then-110th Congress,
was fairly disparaging. He pointed out that Congress had not done much
work in the calendar year 2007. He went on to say that the sole
functions of the Federal Government are to defend the borders and
deliver the mail, but all the Congress had managed to do was ban the
incandescent bulb.
This exact amendment was passed the past 2 years by voice vote and
both times was included in the legislation signed into law by President
Obama. It allows consumers to continue to have a choice and a say as to
what they put in their homes. It's common sense. Let's give some relief
to American families at least until replacement light bulbs can be
marketed at prices that don't break the bank.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the very
distinguished Member's amendment--Dr. Burgess--and simply say that his
amendment would prohibit the Department of Energy from promulgating
light bulb efficiency standards.
It is a common misunderstanding that there is some type of ban on the
incandescent light bulb that effectively requires people to have the
limited choice of only a compact fluorescent bulb. This is simply not
true. Regulations require only that bulbs be more efficient.
So this debate really isn't about choice--or energy efficiency for
that matter. It's about endangering American jobs, specifically
American manufacturing jobs. Given that American manufacturers have
committed to following the law regardless of whether or not it is
enforced, the only benefit of this ill-informed rider is to allow
foreign manufacturers who may not feel a similar obligation to import
noncompliant light bulbs that will not only harm the investments made
by U.S. companies, but place at risk the U.S. manufacturing jobs
associated with making compliant bulbs.
Further, it is the equivalent of a $100 tax on every American
family--that's $16 billion across our Nation--through increased energy
costs.
The performance standards for light bulbs were established in the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. At that time, the bill
enjoyed strong
[[Page H4323]]
bipartisan support of both Republicans and Democrats. Ninety-five House
Republicans voted for final passage, and the bill was signed into law
by President Bush.
As far as I'm aware, the issues that inspired this standard have not
changed and, I would argue, have gotten worse. Families are struggling
every day to meet rising energy bills, and there are real savings to be
had by moving to more efficient light bulbs.
Further, while claiming that the incandescent bulb is dead makes for
a great sound bite, it just doesn't reflect reality. As a result of the
2007 law, manufacturers already are making a variety of new energy-
saving bulbs for homes, including more efficient incandescent bulbs.
These bulbs look like and turn on like the bulbs we have been using for
decades, but are upwards of 28 to 33 percent more efficient. And that's
good for everyone. This is amazing progress in a very short time,
considering that previously the basic technology of incandescent bulbs
had not changed substantially since they were first introduced over 125
years ago.
Philips, GE, and Sylvania are among those currently manufacturing
efficient incandescent bulbs. One is making them entirely within the
United States, and the others are manufacturing the key components in
their U.S. factories.
So I would urge my colleagues to please see the light and oppose this
amendment. And my dear colleague, Dr. Burgess, knows that, despite the
fact that we disagree on this issue, I have the highest respect for his
service in this Congress to the people of Texas.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment no. 29 offered by ms. bass
Ms. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce, with respect to
hydraulic fracturing operations in the Inglewood Oil Field--
(1) the exclusion in section 1421(d)(1)(B) of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h(d)(1)(B));
(2) section 261.4(b)(5) of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations; or
(3) the limitation in section 402(l)(2) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342(l)(2)).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to introduce a straightforward and
narrow amendment that restricts Federal resources from supporting
hydraulic fracturing in the Baldwin Hills/Inglewood Oil Field, the
largest urban oilfield in the United States.
The urban location of the Inglewood Oil Field, as well as the area's
susceptibility to earthquakes, requires unique health and safety
considerations and precautions. The Inglewood Oil Field is nearly 90
years old, a 1,000-acre oilfield with over 350 oil wells in the center
of Los Angeles. It is surrounded by thousands of homes, schools, and
parks. In fact, 300,000 residents of Los Angeles, Baldwin Hills, Ladera
Heights, Culver City, and Inglewood live and work directly around the
field. Additionally, the oilfield borders the Kenny Hahn State
Recreation Area, a park that welcomes thousands of families and
visitors each year. Not only is the area around the Inglewood Oil Field
densely populated; it also sits on the Newport-Inglewood fault, making
it very vulnerable to severe earthquakes.
Clearly, the urban landscape and history of seismic activity in this
area necessitates stringent health and safety reviews prior to any new
oil and gas extraction. However, hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is
occurring in the Inglewood Oil Field without proper regulation or even
a comprehensive study of its safety and impact.
During my time in the California State Assembly, and since coming to
Congress, I have heard numerous times directly from my constituents
that they are fearful about the environmental health and seismic
effects of fracturing in the Inglewood Oil Field and the impact it will
have on their families and communities. They have discussed with me
several concerns about fracking in the oilfield, like the impact on
ground and drinking water safety, toxic chemical dispersion into the
soil and air, and disruption of the Newport-Inglewood fault, which
could lead to major earthquakes or landslides.
In fact, environmental conservation and health community leaders,
like Lark Galloway Gilliam, Jim Lamm, and Mary Anne Greene, a member of
the Community Advisory Council, have continually advocated for
increased assessment and regulation of fracking in the Inglewood Oil
Field.
{time} 1245
In addition, Tom Camarella from Culver City has also expressed these
concerns, and I believe these concerns are justified.
The people of Los Angeles and Culver City are entitled to an
extensive long-term and transparent assessment of fracking operations
at the oilfields. Ensuring the health and safety of our constituents
should be a top priority.
That is why I rise today to offer this amendment, which will ensure
that no Federal funds in this bill will be used to implement,
administer, or enforce fracking in the Inglewood Oil Field for the
coming fiscal year. This is a small step in the greater fracking
debate, but I am proud to amplify the concerns of my community with
this amendment.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentlewoman's
amendment.
The amendment would prohibit, as she said, hydraulic fracking
operations or fracking within the Inglewood Oil Field in Los Angeles.
I appreciate my colleague's passion for this particular issue and
obviously her desire to protect her constituents, but the Energy and
Water appropriations bill is not the proper place for such a unique
prohibition on fracking.
Inglewood Oil Field is not Federal land nor does the Department of
Energy's Office of Fossil Energy have any current projects that involve
Inglewood in its natural gas portfolio. Furthermore, fracking
activities are currently regulated both locally and by her own State of
California.
This is a complex authorizing issue, but we are still waiting to hear
from the Department's lawyers on what effect, if any, this language
would actually have in the fiscal year 2014. Therefore, I must oppose
her amendment and urge other Members to do the same.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Meadows
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to pay the salary of individuals appointed to their
current position through, or to otherwise carry out,
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 5503(a) of title 5,
United States Code.
Mr. MEADOWS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent to waive the reading of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a simple and
straightforward amendment. It prohibits the use of funds for the
payment of salaries to Presidential recess appointees until they are
formally confirmed by the Senate.
[[Page H4324]]
In 1863, a law was passed that barred unconfirmed recess appointees
from being paid. That law stayed on the books until 1940. However, over
time, a number of broad exceptions were made that gradually eliminated
the original intent of that law and rendered the prohibition useless.
This amendment reapplies the original intent of that law to further
reassert the Senate's authority in the confirmation process and prevent
taxpayers from having to pay salaries of unconfirmed Presidential
appointees.
Recent decades have seen a constant erosion of congressional powers
in deference to the executive. The Senate is required to confirm
Presidential appointments for a reason. It is a check on the executive
powers. This amendment is an opportunity to reempower that check by
disincentivizing recess appointments except in cases where they are
truly needed.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that
will help stop Congress from taking the Corps of Engineers back to the
1980s.
In 2007, Congress passed legislation requiring the Army Corps of
Engineers to update its principles and guidelines, the P&G. These are
used by the Corps in formulating, evaluating, and implementing water
resource projects. This is something I've been involved with since I
first came to Congress 17 years ago. I served on the Water Resources
Subcommittee, and discovered that the Corps was trapped in time.
This update was critical in that these have not been updated since
1983. If you understand how the Federal Government operates, for
something that was approved in 1983, they were probably in the works in
the early seventies.
Earlier this year, the Council on Environmental Quality finally
released an updated P&G that lays out broad principles to guide water
investment as well as draft interagency guidelines for implementing the
principles and requirements. These new P&G were developed over the last
6 years by Federal agencies and they incorporated extensive comments
from the public, as well as the National Academy of Sciences.
The modernized P&G will help accelerate project approval, reduce
costs, and support water infrastructure projects with the greatest
economic and community benefits. They will allow for better
consideration of long-term benefits, provide more flexibility for local
communities, and promote more transparency in the Federal
decisionmaking process.
Unfortunately, there appears to be language in the committee report
accompanying this legislation that would prevent the Corps from
implementing them. The report states:
The Corps shall continue to use the document dated March 10, 1983,
and entitled, ``Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines
for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies,'' during
the fiscal year period covered by the Energy and Water Development Act
for 2014.
Does it make any sense at all to take work that has been in the
process for years and tell an agency, You can't update your planning
documents, prevent you from using updated resources?
During the floor debate on this issue in 2007, I indicated that I was
embarrassed that the Corps was operating under guidance from a quarter
century ago; now they are 30 years old. These principles and guidelines
are older than most of our staff.
In 1983, Ronald Reagan was in his first term, Michael Jackson
moonwalked for the first time, and Microsoft Word was first released.
Think about the advancements in science, economics, and flood
management, not to mention our environmental consciousness, all that
have happened since 1983. That's what led the National Academy of
Sciences, in the year 2000, to conclude that these needed to be
``revised to better reflect contemporary management paradigms;
analytical methods; legislative directives; and social, economic, and
political realities.'' It is even more true today than it was 13 years
ago.
This issue is not just about a bureaucratic process for economists
and scientists. These projects have significant impact on the ground.
In 2007, I highlighted the problems from an organization called
Levees.org, a nonpartisan grassroots group founded after Katrina. The
group's mission was to help educate the people of New Orleans about
what happened in Katrina and how to move forward. They supported the
amendment at that time because they know this issue is a matter of life
and death, to be able to have the Corps use the best information, the
best technology, and do the best job. Relying on principles and
guidelines that are a quarter century old is not our very best. Over a
third of a century is not our very best.
I can comprehend no reason why Congress would require the Corps to
continue to rely on outdated documents and not take advantage of the
work, the research, and the progress that's been made by people in the
administration, in the Corps of Engineers, and the scientific
community.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to offer the amendment because I truly
believe that we ought to be able to understand with the committee
what's going on, understand the benefits that led Congress to embed
this in the law in the first place. I would look forward to having a
conversation with my good friend, the chair of the subcommittee, and
the ranking member to see if we can't resolve this for the benefit of
the public.
Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Scalise
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used within the borders of the State of Louisiana by the
Mississippi Valley Division or the Southwestern Division of
the Army Corps of Engineers or any district of the Corps
within such divisions to implement or enforce the mitigation
methodology, referred to as the ``Modified Charleston
Method''.
Mr. SCALISE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present
this amendment that deals with the Corps of Engineers' new program that
was put in place 2 years ago, specifically in the New Orleans district,
called the Modified Charleston Method.
The Corps changed the usual and normal method for mitigation. On any
kind of mitigation that's done on wetlands throughout the country, you
have to mitigate if you are going to do development. Everybody
understands that. Everybody has worked with that over the years.
Two years ago, the Corps changed, specifically for the New Orleans
district, that process and literally put in place a process that has
made it very unworkable to do a lot of our flood protection projects
and economic development projects.
This amendment, by the way, is identical to language that we passed
in the same appropriations bill last year, so the House has already
gone on record saying that this is an unworkable plan by the Corps of
Engineers. This new MCM method, as it is being referred to, has
literally shut down many flood protection projects and economic
development projects in south Louisiana.
What we have been saying to the Corps of Engineers is let's work
together on putting reasonable rules in place. This rule is unworkable,
so much so that the Corps didn't even use these rules when they were
doing their own projects. Americans understand that when government
tries to impose rules on the people and yet doesn't even follow those
same rules themselves, it shows there is a problem. Yet that's what is
happening in this case.
All we are saying is everybody understands we need to do mitigation,
but
[[Page H4325]]
when the Corps comes out with these new rules that triple, in many
cases, the amount of mitigation that needs to be done to a point where
it is unworkable--as an example, just last year, Corps permit
applications for development projects were down by 33 percent because
they literally took off the table the ability to do any kind of
development in many areas of south Louisiana--that's not how rules and
regulations are supposed to work. You ought to be working with local
communities and not saying you can't even protect yourself from
flooding. Literally, if you look at the wetlands rules, they are
preventing us from restoring wetlands with these rules on wetlands. It
doesn't make sense. It is something that's unworkable.
This amendment addresses this problem and says, if the Corps can't
move forward with the Modified Charleston Method, then let's go back to
the table and put some rules in place that actually make sense, put
some commonsense rules in place.
I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support my colleague from
Louisiana's amendment.
Not to belabor the point, but just in the last 11 months, mitigation
costs in the New Orleans district for the Corps of Engineers and
projects related to this have increased right at $11 million.
{time} 1300
It affects all types of projects, and I'll just give you a few
examples:
One is a pipeline because we're responding to an increased need for
natural gas transportation as our Louisiana oil refineries expand. One
is a grocery store that provides fresh food, especially in our food
deserts. Another one is the expansion of a 100-acre commercial park in
St. Tammany Parish to create jobs and new office space. The last is a
St. Tammany Parish drainage project, which would help Louisiana with
its flood protection and protect our community.
So this is a matter that is of vital importance. We are not
diminishing the need for mitigation or underestimating its importance.
What we are trying to say is that it should be reasonable and that the
method that we had before we moved to the Modified Charleston Method
was a good method, but we need to make sure that the Modified
Charleston does not hamper our growth in Louisiana and prohibit us from
protecting our citizens and our residents from future damage caused by
storms or prohibit us from prospering from economic development at the
same time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. I rise in opposition to these very able gentlemen's
amendment. While I have some sympathy for this issue--and it's not a
new one to this bill--I believe that more consistency should be brought
to the way we evaluate wetland impacts, not less, as this amendment
would ensure.
The Charleston Method has been utilized for over two decades in
various Corps districts, and it is a quick and inexpensive and
consistent methodology for use by the regulated public and the Corps.
In 2006 and 2007, the New Orleans district worked with its Federal and
State partners to modify the Charleston Method so that it better
reflected the unique conditions found in south Louisiana, resulting in
the Modified Charleston Method that our colleagues have suggested.
The use of this method is a longstanding one in many Corps districts.
Many regulatory customers use the tool to assess their potential
mitigation requirements for their impacts as well as credits required
at mitigation banks. This transparency in Corps mitigation requirements
has helped the applicant prepare a complete application package and
determine mitigation costs up front--importantly, costs up front--costs
often that are borne by the Federal taxpayer.
The suspension of the use of the Charleston Method in Corps districts
would require that any pending permit application, under section 404 of
the Clean Water Act, and pending mitigation banks, would need to be
reevaluated using a different assessment tool or methodology, or, in
the absence of such a methodology, use the best professional judgment
to determine appropriate mitigation requirements for impacts and for
available credits in mitigation banks. All approved mitigation banks
with available credits that were determined by the process would be
temporarily closed until a new methodology could be developed and the
banks' credits converted to the credit system of the new methodology.
These banks were established utilizing the credit system of the
Charleston Method, and until a similar credit system can be determined
for proposed impact sites, it would not be possible to correlate the
new requirements in the old credit system.
So we are into the weeds on this one, and we know that the difficulty
at the edges--where the water meets the land, where we have very severe
coastal conditions that occur as a result of weather changes and so
forth--do require us to be more land planning conscious. I've seen the
work that the Corps has done in Louisiana, and I appreciate the
gentlemen's concern about their home State. I think to try to change
this in this bill is probably not wise policy, and we know the costs of
these damaged areas to the taxpayers of the United States. With coastal
storms being what they are, we anticipate greater coastal activity, and
I think that wiser planning is better than moving to a process that, I
think, is less rigorous.
So, on those bases, I oppose the gentlemen's amendment, but I do
thank them very much for their deep service to their State, to their
region, which has been so impacted by changes in our environment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Lynch
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the amount made available for
``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Fossil Energy
Research and Development'', and increasing the amount made
available for ``Corps of Engineers-Civil--Department of the
Army--Corps of Engineers-Civil--Construction'', by
$20,000,000.
Mr. LYNCH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read.
The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LYNCH. First of all, I want to thank the chairman, the
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, and also Ms. Kaptur from Ohio,
the ranking member, for the great work they've done.
In spite of the fact that many Members are coming up with refining
amendments, I do want to acknowledge the great work they've done, for
example, on the manufacturing piece that's in this bill as well as the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, which has been amply funded and is so
important to a lot of the coastal communities. Myself representing the
Port of Boston and a large swath of the South Shore of Massachusetts--
some beautiful cities and towns--I do appreciate the work that they've
done. However, there does appear to be a gap in funding with respect to
the Army Corps of Engineers.
The purpose of my amendment would be to increase funding to the
Construction account for the Army Corps of Engineers by $20 million.
This increase would, of course, be offset by decreasing the Fossil Fuel
Research account by a corresponding amount.
I am fortunate to represent a district that relies heavily and
benefits greatly from the proximity to the coast, and I have wonderful,
historic, beautiful towns and cities, like Quincy, Weymouth, Hull,
Cohasset, Hingham, and Scituate, that, as I say, are benefiting
[[Page H4326]]
greatly because they're on the coast. They house commercial fishing
fleets and host wonderful beaches and marinas, and they are vital
components of our Statewide economy and regional economy. But while
these benefits are there, they are also exposed to the most recent
violent coastal storms that have become increasingly devastating in
recent years.
Like many of my colleagues, I have seen firsthand the devastating
effects that these much more intense storms have had on our
communities--beaches erode, and roadways and bridges get washed away.
In our case, we have not been hit as hard as places like the district
of the gentleman from Louisiana or New Jersey or New York with the
Superstorm Sandy effects, but much of our seawall infrastructure and
protection for our beaches have been damaged considerably. We've
benefited from prior Congresses that have made sure that the funding
and the maintenance have been there to preserve that protection, and we
are at that point again.
It seems like we are having 100-year storms every 3 or 4 years now in
my district, and I'm sure it's like that in a lot of places across the
country. I think it's entirely appropriate that we balance this out,
that we rebalance the priorities here, by putting $20 million into the
Construction account for the Army Corps of Engineers while we are
removing a corresponding amount from the Fossil Fuel Research account.
I think that most of us realize that the impacts of climate change are
at least increasing the intensity of the storms that we've seen in
recent years, and we need to provide the Army Corps of Engineers in our
communities with the resources they need to protect against these
natural disasters. I believe my offset does that in a fitting way.
Like President Obama, I think we need an all-of-the-above energy
policy. I'm not here today to debate the cause of global warming or of
climate change, but temperatures and sea levels are rising, and fossil
fuel consumption is a contributing factor. So, as long as we are forced
to rely on fossil fuels, we need to also deal with the fallout from our
own energy policies. We need to protect our coastal communities from
future devastation.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's
amendment.
I share the gentleman's support for smart investments in our Nation's
water resources infrastructure, though. In fact, the Army Corps of
Engineers has always been one of the top priorities in our Energy and
Water bill.
Total program level funding is $50 million above the budget request
and almost $150 million above the post-sequester level. There is very
strong Member interest in the harbor maintenance activities, and most
of these additional funds were included in the Operation and
Maintenance account. Even so, construction funding is less than 1
percent below the President's budget.
On the other hand, the bill already reduces funding for fossil energy
by $84 million below the fiscal year 2013 level. That's a 16 percent
reduction. Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, provide
for 82 percent of our Nation's energy needs, and we will need to
continue to use these valuable energy resources for generations to
come. Research conducted within this program ensures we use our
Nation's fossil fuel resources well and as cleanly as possible. In
fact, if we increased the efficiency of our fossil energy plants by
just 1 percent, we could power an additional 2 million households
without using a single additional pound of fuel from the ground.
We simply cannot take a further reduction to this account, and I urge
my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.
Congressman Lynch, I think, has really thought through this proposal
very well. His is a modest amendment. Actually, the bill that we are
considering is $29,425,000 above the budget request of the
administration, so he is merely conforming his amendment to the initial
request.
For the record, we anticipate that the Department will with this
change spend approximately $420 million this year for fossil energy
research and development.
I agree with my esteemed colleague from New Jersey about the
importance of natural gas, as Ohio is a State that has benefited deeply
from that. A lot of that technology is going very well, and the
companies are making significant profits. They can invest some of that
in their own advanced development now. Then with the additional
drilling for oil on public lands and so forth, we are producing more
than we have in modern history over the last several years.
So I think it's worthy to transfer some of these dollars to the
Corps. We have over $60 billion worth of Corps projects that are backed
up, and in terms of job creation, that just rings home across this
country because those Corps dollars will be put to work in projects
that have been backed up from coast to coast.
I now yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I
appreciate her gracious remarks.
I do want to point out, though, that, since 2010, we've cut $688
million from this account. Now, we all have great respect and
admiration for the Army Corps of Engineers, but having cut $688 million
since 2010 has been reducing their ability to prioritize those projects
around the country that need to be worked on. Some of those are
Democratic districts, and some of those are Republican districts.
That's not what this is about. This is about our infrastructure. So a
$688 million cut since 2010 is a serious obstruction for them to do
their job, and that's all I'm asking here.
I'm asking that we recognize our responsibility and our stewardship
of protecting seawalls and ports and marinas, whether they're on the
Great Lakes or whether they're on the Atlantic or Pacific coast. I am
just asking that we step up and meet our responsibility in a meaningful
way.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman, and I, evidently, very strongly
support his amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts will be
postponed.
{time} 1315
Amendment Offered by Mrs. Blackburn
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Department of Energy to finalize, implement,
or enforce the proposed rule entitled ``Energy Conservation
Standards Ceiling Fans and Ceiling Fan Light Kits'' and
identified by regulation identification number 1904-AC87.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Tennessee is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, as I begin to talk about this amendment
that Mr. Rokita and I have worked on and bring to you today, I want to
pause and take just a moment and commend our appropriators and the
chairman. He is accustomed to seeing me come down and try to cut 1
percent, 5 percent more out of the budget, but the appropriators this
year have done that work for us.
This bill before us today totals $30.426 billion, which is $2.9
billion below last year's level, $700 billion below the sequester
level, and $4 billion below the President's request. Indeed, it's below
the pre-Pelosi budget, which was $31.5 billion.
As my former colleague in the Tennessee State Senate used to say--Tim
Burchett, now mayor of Knoxville--he would quote Tennessee author Alex
[[Page H4327]]
Haley, who said ``find the good, and praise it.'' So I praise them for
doing these cuts on the front end, and I focus my attention on the
issue we have with ceiling fans and this administration's interest in
overregulating ceiling fans.
As many of my colleagues know, ceiling fans and ceiling fan light
kits already face existing regulations set in place by the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. These provisions burden ceiling fan manufacturers
with ineffective mandates. However, despite the current mandates, the
Department of Energy is looking to require additional mandates that
will impact everything such as the angle of the blade, shape, airflow,
light kits. They are determined to redesign the American fan and have
issued a 101-page rulemaking framework document which evaluates the
potential energy savings that new regulations would supposedly provide.
We've already seen the Federal Government stretch their regulatory
tentacles into our homes and determine what kind of light bulbs we have
to use. Now they're coming after our ceiling fans. It is a sad state of
affairs when even our ceiling fans aren't safe from this
administration. Enough is enough.
These new regulations being considered by DOE will significantly
impair the ability of ceiling fan manufacturers like Hunter Fans in
Memphis to produce reasonably priced, highly decorative fans. They will
also force our constituents to use less energy-efficient mechanisms to
cool their homes, using more energy. It is imperative that we join
together and prohibit any funding in this bill from being used by DOE
to finalize, implement, or enforce new regulations on ceiling fans.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
amendment offered by my friend, the gentlelady from Tennessee. Like
her, I also want to thank the appropriators.
As a member of the Budget Committee, our responsibility is to issue
top-line numbers that we stay within in order to bring down the deficit
and ultimately address the towering debt that we're facing as a country
not only today, but the even worse debt we're going to be facing given
the current trend that we're on in the future.
Mr. Chair, remember when we were told to keep our tires properly
inflated and to get a regular tune-up to save fuel? Some people
snickered and commented, ``Is this an energy policy?'' At least those
ideas actually saved energy and actually saved cost, albeit a drop in
the bucket. But now, in one of its latest efforts, along comes the
Department of Energy and proposes a regulation to impose destructive
and unnecessary energy-efficiency standards for ceiling fans. And like
much of their agenda, it is completely counterproductive. It's another
example of Big Government run amok. It's an example of the complete
disregard bureaucrats have for the practical implications of the
regulations that they issue.
The Department of Energy contends that a certain amount of energy
would be saved by requiring greater efficiency from ceiling fans, as
the gentlelady mentioned and explained. Of course, that ignores the
fact that ceiling fans are already far more energy efficient than other
cooling devices like air-conditioners. Recently, General Electric
published an article stating that an average electric central air-
conditioner consumes 5,000 watts of electricity during operation. By
contrast, a ceiling fan consumes as little as just 30 watts when
operating under similar conditions. That's over 165 times less
electricity than consumed by your typical central air-conditioning
system.
The proposed ceiling fan regulations would increase the cost of
ceiling fans and reduce the manufacturer's ability to produce
aesthetically pleasing devices marketable to people like us, the
consumers. As a result, energy savings from these efficiency standards
would not outweigh the increased costs of energy consumption brought
about by the consumers foregoing ceiling fans and shifting to high-
energy consumption devices and increased usage of existing devices.
The Department of Energy's proposed regulations on ceiling fans are
absolutely counterproductive. They will encourage more energy
consumption, they will reduce consumer choice and they have the
potential to destroy jobs, including in Indiana.
Americans need an energy policy to unleash our economy, not
economically destructive dictates from Washington bureaucrats. This is
yet another example of this administration double-dipping in the
pockets of Americans, using taxpayer dollars to raise prices on
consumers.
As such, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. I rise in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment and
wish to point out to our colleagues that this amendment will prohibit
any funds made available by the act from being used by the Department
of Energy to finalize, implement, or enforce the proposed rule
entitled, ``Standards, Ceiling Fans and Ceiling Fan Light Kits'' and
identified by regulation identification number 1904-AC87.
The Department of Energy is initiating the rulemaking and data
collection process to consider amending the energy conservation
standards for ceiling fans and ceiling fan light kits. Making ceiling
fans more efficient would potentially reduce carbon output by 22
million metric tons. This amendment would erode the Department of
Energy's effort to curb carbon emissions and save consumers money on
their electric bills. The Department estimates that the higher
standards for ceiling fans will result in $4.3 billion in undiscounted
energy bill savings through 2030.
Also, I would be remiss if I did not point out that these amendments
seek to undercut the administration's rulemaking authority given to it
by Congress. Speaker after speaker on the other side of the aisle
criticized this administration for not undertaking rulemaking on other
issues and instead issuing guidance. Now we have rulemaking that allows
for public comment, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
are still not satisfied.
The Department is following its responsibility under the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 to regulate ceiling fan energy usage. And you know
what? It's not a bad idea. We actually own ceiling fans in our family.
What's interesting about them is, if you have two or three speeds on
them, the first speed, which is supposed to be the low speed, is more
than we want, and it's very hard to get these fans demonstrated in the
showroom sometimes. If you want to be a responsible consumer, I think
it would be really helpful to the buying public to have standards, to
be able to have labeling, to know what you're buying.
This is an important market. I would guess it's one that's growing in
our economy. But I think it's really important to have this kind of
effort. The industry will be able to comment. That's what rulemaking is
all about. We can work with consumers. Consumers like us can write in.
We can make our comments. Overall, we get a better product and we get
one that's more energy efficient.
I know that there's a Hunter Fan Company located in Memphis,
Tennessee, so I imagine the gentlelady may be speaking on their behalf.
That's okay. That's what we're all here for. But the consumers out
there also have a right to try to buy the most energy-efficient
product.
The fan that we bought, the light is too bright in the ceiling. And I
don't know if you've ever tried to install one of those things. It's
not so easy to get that off and to put the different bulbs in and all.
As I think it's an industry that is growing and improving, I would
think they could use a little bit of help.
This amendment is anti-consumer. I think it should be defeated, but I
admire the gentlelady for bringing it to the floor and the gentleman
who supported her. I think working together we can all make it a little
bit better for the environment, for consumers, and for the company.
They will sell more fans, and people will have more confidence in their
product.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
[[Page H4328]]
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Higgins
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to relocate or consolidate general and administrative
functions, personnel, or resources of the Buffalo and Chicago
Districts of the Corps of Engineers Great Lakes and Ohio
River Division.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan amendment seeks to stop a
flawed plan that would endanger crucial Army Corps projects in the
Great Lakes region.
The Army Corps of Engineers' Great Lakes and Ohio River Division is
attempting to move key functions performed in Buffalo and Chicago
regions out of their respective States.
This is unacceptable.
When it comes to protecting the safety, health, and future of our
waterways, there is no substitute for having a team of qualified people
on the ground. Taking key staff out of western New York will only
hinder the delivery of high-impact projects already in progress. And
any plan to turn the Buffalo and Chicago districts into mere satellite
offices is a wrongheaded decision to divest in our Great Lakes.
In my community alone, the Army Corps is overseeing a $44 million
restoration of the Buffalo River and $359 million restoration of the
former Linde site in Tonawanda, among dozens of other projects.
The Buffalo district overseas 38,000 square miles from Massena, New
York, to Toledo, Ohio--planning, constructing, and operating water
projects to reduce floods, maintain navigation, protect the shoreline,
and support water quality efforts. Failure to see these projects
through to completion would not only harm western New York, but delays
and cost overruns would impact the bottom line of the Army Corps.
Mr. Chairman, the Great Lakes system moves more than 160 million tons
of cargo a year, supports 227,000 jobs, and contributes $33.5 billion
to the economy annually. As an engine of economic activity and valuable
natural resources, we should be committing more resources to the Great
Lakes, not less.
A similar amendment was offered by Senator Kirk and Senator Durbin
and was adopted by the Senate Appropriations Committee last week.
I thank my colleagues, especially Mr. Collins, Mr. Lipinski, and Ms.
Schakowsky, for their support of this bipartisan amendment and urge its
adoption.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I will support the amendment, but I do have some
concerns.
Of course we want the Corps to take a look at the cost of their
operation across the Nation to see where they can make savings.
We are seeking from the Corps information before we make any final
decisions, but I'm supportive of their objectives. We just need to take
a closer look at the financial justification for what they're doing.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. COLLINS of New York. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Higgins
from New York, for putting forth this amendment.
He and I stood together in Buffalo to talk about the adverse effects
this proposal by the Army Corps of Engineers would have on the growth
and maintenance of the Great Lakes, one of our Nation's greatest
resources. But this issue is not specific to just western New York and
it's not partisan. It's about preserving our Great Lakes.
Many of us don't know, but there are 4,500 miles of U.S. coastline
along the Great Lakes, making it larger than both the Atlantic and
Pacific coast combined. And among this huge length of coastline, there
are many hundreds of projects. Many harbors that are critical to
commercial navigation and recreation are in serious disrepair.
By moving contracting officers, those who are on the ground and
require face-to-face contact with the companies doing the actual work,
these projects will only fall further into disrepair. It won't save a
dollar to move these employees to an office far from the site of a
project. If you move these workers to Detroit or Louisville, some of
them working on Buffalo or Chicago-area projects will have to be flown
in and stay at local hotels at government expense. How can this
possibly save money? Common sense tells me it's going to be more
costly.
{time} 1330
This amendment is simple, as it will prevent funds in this bill from
being used for this proposal. It will help maintain the Great Lakes,
which are a key economic driver to our national economy.
I hope my colleagues will support this bipartisan amendment that will
ensure the Army Corps of Engineers will provide timely delivery on
projects that reduce flooding, protect the shoreline, maintain
navigation, and support water-quality efforts all along the Great
Lakes.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. First, I want to express my thanks to the chairman
for saying that he would accept this bipartisan amendment, and to my
colleagues who have spoken about it.
The decision to eliminate many of the functions from the Chicago and
the Buffalo offices were done without consultation with the local
communities and without seeking the approval of the Congress, which is
what they are supposed to do.
The downsizing just in Chicago could cause as many as 200 jobs lost
in our area, and it certainly could affect the health and safety of our
waterways. Chicago is the point of entry from the Mississippi River to
the Great Lakes, and its harbors are of major economic importance not
just to Chicago, but to the entire Great Lakes region. As my colleague
pointed out, it's a shoreline greater than either the Pacific or the
Atlantic Coast. Actually, I just learned that from you today. Thank you
for that important information.
Its harbors are of major economic importance to all of us, and it
assists in the rehabilitation of the Chicago shoreline. It also, from
the Chicago district office, leads the fight against the spread of the
Asian carp into Lake Michigan.
I have very serious concern about the downsizing of the Chicago
district and the impacts it would have on those efforts. Like the
chairman, I understand the Corps' efforts to reduce costs and our
interest in doing that; but the minimization of the Chicago and Buffalo
areas would trade short-term savings with much more significant and
lasting long-term costs.
As my colleague pointed out, Senator Kirk and Senator Durbin passed a
similar amendment in the Senate. I urge all of my colleagues to join in
supporting us in this important bipartisan amendment to prevent the
Army Corps from reducing its Chicago and Buffalo offices.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. I want to thank Congressman Higgins for offering this
important amendment, and Congresswoman Schakowsky for her leadership on
lakes issues, and also Chairman Frelinghuysen for his openness to those
of us who happen to live in the Great Lakes region.
Obviously, I rise in support of the amendment. Also, I just wanted to
say on the record to the Corps, it would be wonderful if somebody over
at the Corps had a map and they took all of the watersheds of the Great
Lakes and they put them all together and then the staff for the Great
Lakes would be located somewhere in those watersheds, because right
now, that isn't the case. And it causes us all kinds of bloody problems
up in our part of the world where we do adjoin Canada up there. You
know, there's another country north of us. It has been so hard to
[[Page H4329]]
get them to recognize the coastline that you described. And so this is
my moment to vent a little bit on the floor and say: Hello, Corps.
We're out there.
I happen to represent the largest watershed in the Great Lakes, and
we really need the Corps' focus on the most important freshwater system
that exists on the face of the Earth. Twenty percent of the freshwater
on the globe, surface freshwater, is up in our region. And it always
seems like it's never together. It's never together. So the gentleman's
amendment helps to focus a little bit on this, but the challenge goes
beyond just this amendment.
I know the Corps will hear us, and I know as they talk about
restructuring, meeting budget realities, they will view us as a system
that is important to think of as a whole, not just in little pieces and
dangling particles and things that happen out there, but rather as an
extraordinarily important water system for our continent and for our
world.
So I wanted the opportunity to say that on the record, and I thank
Congressman Higgins for his leadership, and I thank the chairman for
his understanding. We in the Great Lakes region face our own set of
issues, and we need the Corps' full cooperation. I ask my colleagues to
support the Higgins amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Higgins).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Walberg
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to carry out section 801 of the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17281).
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WALBERG. My amendment prohibits the use of funds to be used to
carry out section 801 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007, which creates a national media campaign to promote alternative
green energies. The 2007 energy law directs the Department of Energy to
run a national media campaign to promote alternative energies,
encourage energy efficiency, and discourage the use of fossil fuels,
authorizing $5 million a year.
Promoting green-energy technology is really not the role of the
Federal Government apart from an all-of-the-above energy plan, and it
certainly is not part of the core mission of the Department of Energy.
The American people don't need more government bureaucrats to tell them
what energy sources they should use. The government needs to get out of
the business of picking winners and losers in the energy market and
certainly shouldn't be funding advertising campaigns on behalf of
private green-energy firms, which is normally a losing proposition to
the taxpayer.
This amendment is more than fair. It was included in the last
Congress' attempt at this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to
support it and to defund this taxpayer media campaign.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am in support of the gentleman's amendment, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Grayson
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enter into a contract with any offeror or any of
its principals if the offeror certifies, as required by
Federal Acquisition Regulation, that the offeror or any of
its principals:
(A) within a three-year period preceding this offer has
been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against it
for: commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection
with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public
(Federal, State, or local) contract or subcontract; violation
of Federal or State antitrust statutes relating to the
submission of offers; or commission of embezzlement, theft,
forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records,
making false statements, tax evasion, violating Federal
criminal tax laws, or receiving stolen property; or
(B) are presently indicted for, or otherwise criminally or
civilly charged by a governmental entity with, commission of
any of the offenses enumerated above in subsection (A); or
(C) within a three-year period preceding this offer, has
been notified of any delinquent Federal taxes in an amount
that exceeds $3,000 for which the liability remains
unsatisfied.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRAYSON. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, expands the list of
contractors who are forbidden from contracting with the Federal
Government, to include such contractors as those who have been
convicted of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, et cetera. This
amendment is identical to language that was inserted in the Military
Construction, Veterans Administration, and the Homeland Security
appropriations bills by voice vote.
Since brevity is sometimes an under-appreciated virtue, I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We accept the gentleman's amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the
purpose of entering into a colloquy.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today for the purpose of entering
into a colloquy with the chairman of the Energy and Water
Appropriations Subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from New
Jersey.
Mr. Chairman, the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant for many years was
the only plant operating in America in which uranium was enriched. This
facility has met the national security needs of the United States since
1952, producing enriched uranium for nuclear weapons and commercial
nuclear reactors.
On May 24, 2013, it was announced that the facilities of the Paducah
Gaseous Diffusion Plant would be transitioned back to the Department of
Energy, resulting in 1,200 lost jobs and a vast need to start cleanup
of the area.
Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Secretary of Energy
now has full responsibility for decontamination and decommissioning
cleanup work at the Paducah site and for reindustrialization of the
materials and facilities at that site. I was pleased that Secretary
Moniz recently announced on July 3 Request for Offers to utilize the
assets, land, and facilities at the Paducah Department of Energy site.
As we move forward to finish the legacy cleanup of this plant and,
most important, to reindustrialize that site to create new jobs, we are
going to need to work with the chairman's committee on a very close
basis. I hope that we can work with you in the coming years to ensure
that we provide the Department the necessary support to accelerate
reindustrialization through the Request for Offers process and also
expedite the cleanup.
I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey
personally for his commitment in working with us on this, for the job
that you have done on the 2014 Energy and Water appropriations bill,
and I just hope that you will continue working with us.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITFIELD. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I look forward to working with my friend from
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), who is a strong advocate on behalf of
Kentucky, for jobs for Kentucky and the Paducah
[[Page H4330]]
plant. We do appreciate the work that the Department is doing to
reindustrialize the Paducah site. We also recognize that the cleanup on
the site must get done in a timely fashion, and we hope to work with
the various stakeholders and with Congressman Whitfield to ensure that
happens.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Barrow of Georgia
Mr. BARROW of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce any authority,
in any preceding provision of this Act, to use funds for the
purchase or hire of motor vehicles.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BARROW of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this week marks the beginning of
sequestration-related furloughs in my district. As a result, 3,200
employees at Fort Gordon near Augusta, Georgia, will be doing without
20 percent of their pay for the next few months.
Also, like many in this House, my district is home to projects caught
in the Corps of Engineers' construction backlog. In particular, the New
Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam near Augusta has been waiting for repairs
by the Corps of Engineers for 13 years, when Congress first authorized
them.
This bill includes language to allow the Federal Government to
purchase more cars on top of the 700,000 vehicles it already owns. My
amendment would simply prohibit the expenditure of funds to purchase
more vehicles. I believe there are better ways to spend that money.
I am serious about cutting unnecessary and wasteful spending. I also
believe that cutting spending shouldn't be an end unto itself. It's an
opportunity to reduce our deficit, but it's also an opportunity to make
our government work better.
This amendment represents a relatively small change to the bill, but
I believe it speaks to a larger principle. It would be an inappropriate
use of taxpayer money to purchase more cars when so many folks across
the country are being forced out of work and so many critical projects
sit untouched. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the gentleman from Georgia's
amendment. His amendment is overly broad and would prevent the
Department of Energy, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of
Reclamation, and the National Nuclear Security Agency, all agencies
covered under our bill, from leasing or purchasing any new vehicles.
I understand my colleague's concern with the size of vehicle fleet
within some of these agencies; and, in fact, I share some of those very
concerns. That's why our bill actually carries a reporting requirement
within the Department of Energy to report on its vehicle fleet.
{time} 1345
However, this amendment would have serious unintended consequences,
ranging from maintenance of Corps sites to science at our national
labs, such of which are tied to the nuclear stockpile that are involved
in protecting our nuclear sites.
Therefore, I must oppose the amendment. I certainly understand his
reasons for doing it. I'm supportive in theory, but there are some
potentially unintended consequences, so I must oppose it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Scalise
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:
Sec. ___. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the amount made available for
``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Department
Administration'', and increasing the amount made available
for ``Corps of Engineers-Civil--Department of the Army--Corps
of Engineers--Construction'', by $2,000,000.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment that
reestablishes priorities here. It's similar to an amendment we passed
overwhelmingly last year on this same piece of legislation, the Energy
and Water appropriations bill.
What this amendment does is it transfers $2 million out of the
Department of Energy's Administrative account and moves that money into
the Corps of Engineers construction budget. And the reason we're doing
this is to move more projects forward, to actually get some of that
backlog that the Corps of Engineers have moved forward and open up the
door for projects all across the country that are vital to not only our
Nation's waterways, our economy, our ability to export, but in
Louisiana, for example, it would provide opportunity to move forward on
the Louisiana Coastal Area plan, which is a coastal restoration plan
that's a major flood protection project.
So what we're talking about is, literally, one penny, one penny
coming out of administration, of bureaucracy in Washington, to move
that money into actual construction projects.
And I think when you talk to taxpayers across the country, they are
less concerned about having bureaucracy in Washington. They want to
actually see government get things done. They want to see this backlog
get cleared out, and they want to see other projects that are important
to our Nation's economy move forward. And that's what this amendment
does. It's a bipartisan amendment.
I want to thank my colleagues--Mr. Richmond, Mr. Cassidy--who have
also helped work on this. But again, this deals with projects all
across the country that are in a backlog that could help move our
economy forward rather than spending that money on administration in
Washington.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. If I may ask a question of Mr. Scalise, are you
seeking money for the overall account or are you seeking a certain
amount of money for a project in your neck of the woods in Louisiana?
I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The way that this amendment is drafted actually would apply
nationwide. This would move $2 million out of that administrative
account in the Department of Energy, move it into the overall Corps
construction budget, so it would be available to the Corps of Engineers
for construction projects across the Nation.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I do rise in opposition to the amendment.
And let me say, I appreciate the gentleman's passion for coastal
restoration. I know it's a high priority for his district and others
around the Nation.
The bill before us includes over $5 million to continue studies,
engineering and design work and various components of the program.
That's nearly 6 percent of the entire Investigations account dedicated
to continuing work in coastal restoration in Louisiana.
The committee had to make some tough choices in the bill. While the
Army Corps was a high priority, it was not completely spared. The
Construction account, specifically, is slightly below the President's
budget request, and almost 20 percent below the fiscal year 2013
appropriations.
The Corps has numerous projects already under construction that were
not included in the President's budget and, so, aren't likely to be
funded in fiscal year 2014.
While construction funding is trending downward, I believe it is most
prudent to prioritize funding for ongoing projects so they can be
completed and the Federal Government can realize the public safety,
economic and other benefits from previous spending,
[[Page H4331]]
rather than starting new projects. It's unclear to me whether this is a
new project, but I take the gentleman at his word that this is not a
new project.
I do oppose the amendment. The reduction would substantially work
against our purposes of trying to balance the Federal budget and lower
the Federal deficit.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RICHMOND. I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, I would urge everyone to support the
bipartisan amendment that's being offered by my colleague, Mr. Scalise,
from Louisiana.
And just in response to the last comment about reducing the budget
and getting our fiscal house in order, there are two ways to do it, and
one way to do that is to make wise investments that give you a return
on your dollar.
This investment, alone, would secure the coastal area of Louisiana,
which would prevent the Federal Government from spending money in
future years because of effects of hurricanes or surge or coastal
erosion. The dollar we spend today, I'm sure, and I feel very
comfortable in saying, we will recoup multiple dollars because of that.
If you just look at Louisiana and what we've contributed to the
Nation's economy and to the Federal Government since 1950-2006, the
Federal Government, the Federal Treasury has received over $150 billion
from Louisiana. And we do that in a number of ways.
But if you think about Louisiana, you think about the coast that
we're talking about. We're talking about 33 percent of the Nation's
seafood comes from the coast of Louisiana. We're talking about almost a
quarter of the Nation's domestic energy, and you look at it's home to
the country's largest port system.
So when we talk about what we're protecting and the $2 million that
we would spend today and the amount of money that we would recoup, I
would just say that it's probably the prudent thing to do is to spend
this money so that we can continue to protect Louisiana and the
investment it makes in the country so that we continue to do it.
And I would also add that the bipartisan amendment simply builds on
President Obama's 2014 budget request, and the administration called
this a high-priority construction project.
So I would just urge everyone to support this bipartisan amendment
and to look at it not as just spending or construction, but as truly an
investment in the future of the country in terms of making sure that
our energy production, our seafood, that the people in south Louisiana
continue to have comfort and some protection.
And I would just tell you that either we spend it today or we're
going to spend it tomorrow in an exponential number, because restoring
the coast of Louisiana is a national priority and it's a national need.
And if you look at the coast of Louisiana, every hour we still lose a
football field of land, and at some point, we're going to pay for it.
My preference would be to pay for it when we're not spending as much.
So it's almost like that leaking roof. You can pay for it now and
just replace some shingles, or you can wait a couple of years and
replace not only the shingles, but the roof, the ceiling, the carpet,
and the electrical.
So, at some point, it's your choice. And I would just urge us to
support this amendment, and let's spend the money now while we can get
a great return on our investment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. I am rising to express sympathy with the authors of this
amendment, Congressman Scalise and Congressman Richmond. And you're
eloquent spokesmen for your districts and your regions.
I hope that you and the membership understand that one of the reasons
that we reluctantly opposed your amendment is because the mark we were
given in our bill is so far below what we need to meet all national
needs. Your proposal is actually a new start, if we were using the
classification system that we use. And as much as we want to fund it,
we simply don't have the funds in the bill to do it.
The Corps has over $60 billion worth, $60 billion of backed up
projects that they are not able to complete. It would be the biggest
job creator in this country if we could move off the dime and fund
those projects.
But to take and prioritize Louisiana as a new start over, for
example, Sacramento, that has major challenges with their levee system,
or St. Louis, how does one choose? Or the Great Lakes, where we can't
dredge ports.
And I often tell the story that, without the dredging in the Great
Lakes, pretty soon, rather than having a channel that's like this--they
keep narrowing the channel because we have less and less money--pretty
soon it's going to silt up. We won't be able to get anything through.
So we have a problem in our bill in trying to fund everything that is
necessary for the sake of the Nation.
So your proposal is worthy, but how do we put you in the front of the
line when others have been in line and we've not been able to complete
their projects? We need to be able to have $60 billion in order to
complete the work of the Corps with just existing projects that are
already in line.
So I reluctantly stand here today in a very uncomfortable position.
That project that you're referring to is billions of dollars in cost,
and starting it now is something we simply can't afford, based on the
allocation that we were given in our committee. We're below last year.
We're below what's necessary for the Nation, and we're paying the price
from coast to coast. So, Louisiana is deserving of attention, but so
are 49 other States that have projects backed up.
And I say to the chairman, I completely share your pain in trying to
hold the line at completing what is in line and not letting anyone else
cut the line for their projects, no matter how worthy they are. Our
fundamental problem is we don't have the funds to complete everything
that is necessary.
So I urge my colleagues to vote with us in opposition to this
amendment, as much as I sympathize with its worthiness. It just isn't
possible with everything else that is in line ahead of it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CASSIDY. First, let's be clear, this is not just for Louisiana.
This $2 million will be available nationwide.
And that said, I rise in support of this amendment. Budgets are about
establishing priorities and then making wise use of scarce resources.
We know with these scarce resources, $1 million in a planning grant,
which later on will be funded to greater dollars, can actually save
billions in hurricane repair.
So, if I may say, there is lots of money right now in the Corps. The
fact is the Corps has even a larger backlog, and these projects are not
$2 million to complete. It takes $500,000 to begin the NEPA process or
the sampling of the soil or something like that. So small amounts of
dollars at the beginning can initiate a process that comes to fruition
with an authorization later on.
This is a national issue. Let me just speak just about Louisiana,
because you could equally speak about your home State.
The gasoline that is sold in Philadelphia is produced in St. Charles
Parish. If a hurricane knocks out that petrochemical plant, gasoline
prices rise by 20 cents a gallon in the Northeast.
Now, you could say something similar in Ohio and Mr. Garamendi in
California and others elsewhere. So we're not saying initiate a process
which completely funds. We're saying give seed money so that community
in California, Ohio, or Louisiana can begin the process where later on
we can make a decision regarding greater funding.
We can, as Mr. Richmond said, either spend a little bit now and
potentially save billions in the future or, on our budget priorities,
we can say we're going to be penny-wise but pound-foolish.
I urge passage of the amendment. I thank my colleague for introducing
it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
The amendment was agreed to.
[[Page H4332]]
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceeding were postponed,
in the following order:
Amendment by Mr. Hastings of Florida.
Amendment by Mr. Garamendi of California.
Amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia.
Amendment by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
Amendment by Mr. Quigley of Illinois.
Amendment by Mr. Heck of Nevada.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
{time} 1400
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 156,
noes 266, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 328]
AYES--156
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Markey
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Walz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--266
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Andrews
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Cardenas
Carter
Cassidy
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Latta
Lewis
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Meng
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Wasserman Schultz
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--12
Campbell
Gohmert
Grijalva
Holt
Horsford
Hunter
McCarthy (NY)
Negrete McLeod
Rogers (MI)
Shimkus
Webster (FL)
Young (FL)
{time} 1426
Messrs. TIPTON, BENTIVOLIO, PALAZZO, COSTA, HUDSON, MESSER, PETERS of
California, ISRAEL, and RYAN of Ohio changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Ms. CLARKE changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Garamendi) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 155,
noes 266, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 329]
AYES--155
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
Kuster
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Markey
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
[[Page H4333]]
Scott, David
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Walz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--266
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Andrews
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Cardenas
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Holding
Hoyer
Hudson
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (PA)
Kilmer
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Meng
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Wasserman Schultz
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--13
Broun (GA)
Campbell
Holt
Horsford
Huelskamp
Hunter
McCarthy (NY)
Negrete McLeod
Rogers (MI)
Shimkus
Stivers
Webster (FL)
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining.
{time} 1432
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 165,
noes 252, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 330]
AYES--165
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Collins (GA)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Crawford
Daines
Davis, Rodney
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Southerland
Stockman
Stutzman
Thornberry
Tipton
Walberg
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoho
Young (IN)
NOES--252
Alexander
Andrews
Barber
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Collins (NY)
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gerlach
Gibson
Granger
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Hahn
Hanabusa
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Nunes
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radel
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Richmond
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stewart
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
[[Page H4334]]
NOT VOTING--17
Campbell
Cole
Delaney
Gohmert
Gutierrez
Holt
Horsford
Hunter
McCarthy (NY)
Negrete McLeod
Noem
Rogers (MI)
Shimkus
Smith (NE)
Tiberi
Webster (FL)
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining.
{time} 1439
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson
Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184,
noes 238, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 331]
AYES--184
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
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
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
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
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
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
Maloney, Carolyn
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--238
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
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
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
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
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Terry
Thompson (MS)
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)
NOT VOTING--12
Campbell
Cole
Cramer
Gohmert
Holt
Horsford
Hunter
McCarthy (NY)
Negrete McLeod
Rogers (MI)
Shimkus
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1445
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California changed his vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Quigley
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196,
noes 227, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 332]
AYES--196
Amash
Andrews
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks (AL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSantis
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Garcia
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Huelskamp
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Labrador
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Massie
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Pocan
Polis
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radel
Rahall
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Salmon
[[Page H4335]]
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Yoho
NOES--227
Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bass
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Danny
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hoyer
Hudson
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--11
Campbell
Gohmert
Holt
Horsford
Hunter
McCarthy (NY)
Negrete McLeod
Paulsen
Rogers (MI)
Shimkus
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1452
Mr. WENSTRUP changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. RICE of South Carolina changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 332 (Quigley), I was
unexpectedly detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Gosar was allowed to speak out of order.)
A Moment of Silence in Honor of the Yarnell 19
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, we, the Arizona delegation, rise today in
the wake of the tragic Yarnell Hill Fire that has left our hearts, the
hearts of Arizonans and the hearts of Americans across the country
overwhelmed with disbelief and sadness.
This was the largest loss of life of first responders since 9/11.
The town of Yarnell and the people of Arizona will never forget and
will forever honor the 19 heroes of the elite Granite Mountain Hotshot
fire crew who lost their lives in an act of self-sacrificing bravery.
Out of my deepest respect for these fallen heroes, their families and
the communities of Prescott, Peeples Valley and Yarnell, I ask you to
keep them in your prayers.
I now ask you to join me and my colleagues for a moment of silence to
honor the Yarnell 19's ultimate act of courage and sacrifice.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Heck of Nevada
The CHAIR. Without objection, 5-minute voting will continue.
There was no objection.
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 86,
noes 338, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 333]
AYES--86
Amodei
Bachmann
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Collins (GA)
Conaway
Crawford
Edwards
Farenthold
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Goodlatte
Gosar
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Heck (NV)
Hultgren
Hurt
Johnson, Sam
Jones
King (IA)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lankford
Matheson
McCaul
McKeon
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Petri
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Radel
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rooney
Ross
Salmon
Scalise
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stivers
Stockman
Thornberry
Turner
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Wittman
Yoder
Young (AK)
NOES--338
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Andrews
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (NY)
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (WA)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Honda
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
LaMalfa
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Massie
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
[[Page H4336]]
Nolan
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pittenger
Pitts
Pocan
Polis
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Roby
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stewart
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster (FL)
Welch
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoho
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--10
Campbell
Gohmert
Holt
Horsford
Hunter
McCarthy (NY)
Negrete McLeod
Rogers (MI)
Shimkus
Young (FL)
{time} 1501
Messrs. DAINES, PASTOR of Arizona, and Ms. WATERS changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now
rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Yoder) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hultgren, Chair of the Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2609) making
appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes,
had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________