[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 107 (Wednesday, July 24, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H4995-H5002]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2218, COAL RESIDUALS REUSE AND
MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2013, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1582,
ENERGY CONSUMERS RELIEF ACT OF 2013
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 315 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 315
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2218) to amend subtitle D of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act to encourage recovery and beneficial use of coal
combustion residuals and establish requirements for the
proper management and disposal of coal combustion residuals
that are protective of human health and the environment. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy
and Commerce now printed in the bill. The committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
All points of order against the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in
order except those printed in part A of the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any
Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill
or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 2. At any time after the adoption of this resolution
the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII,
declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1582) to protect consumers by prohibiting the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from
promulgating as final certain energy-related rules that are
estimated to cost more than $1 billion and will cause
significant adverse effects to the economy. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill, it
shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment
in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 113-19. That amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are
waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B
of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Denham). The gentleman from Texas is
recognized for 1 hour.
{time} 1300
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 315 provides for
consideration of two pieces of legislation passed by the Committee on
Energy and Commerce. The first, H.R. 2218, the Coal Residuals Reuse and
Management Act of 2013 introduced by my friend on the committee, Mr.
McKinley from West Virginia, passed out of committee with a strong
bipartisan vote with 54 bipartisan cosponsors. The second piece of
legislation, H.R. 1582, the Energy Consumers Relief Act of 2013, was
introduced by my friend Mr. Cassidy from Louisiana.
The rule before us today provides for 1 hour of general debate on
each of the bills included in the rule. A total of nine amendments were
made in order between the two bills, six on the Democratic side and
three on the Republican side. Further, the minority is afforded the
customary motion to recommit, allowing for yet another opportunity to
amend each piece of legislation before it's final vote.
H.R. 2218, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act of 2013, is a
product of hours of work over the course of the past few years that the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley) has put in to perfect this
legislation. Indeed, the legislation includes numerous provisions
offered by Democrats and even reflects input by President Obama's own
Environmental Protection Agency.
This legislation was prompted by a move in June of 2010 by the
Environmental Protection Agency to regulate coal combustion residuals.
In this rule, the Environmental Protection Agency set out three
proposals for coal residuals, commonly referred to as coal ash. Coal
residuals are often recycled in an environmentally sound fashion and
repurposed for use in roads, parks, golf courses, and any other number
of safe manners. Unfortunately, many in the industry viewed these
proposed Environmental Protection Agency regulations as placing
barriers to the continued use or recycling of coal ash.
In response to these concerns, Mr. McKinley's bill would provide for
minimum Federal standards but allow States to craft a permitting
program that could be tailored to the needs in each individual State.
The bill makes clear that it does not provide the Environmental
Protection Agency with new rulemaking authority. Further, it requires
the Environmental Protection Agency to defer to the States with respect
to the regulation of coal ash. This would allow Sates to protect human
health and the environment by adapting an existing solid waste
regulatory program for coal ash. To ensure adequate safety measures for
human health, the bill requires installation of groundwater monitoring
at all structures that receive coal ash.
[[Page H4996]]
The second bill included in today's rule has been carefully designed
to protect consumers from a runaway Environmental Protection Agency
which, in my experience as a member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, constantly uses some pretty strange figures and some funny
math in depicting the so-called benefits of its rules and rarely fully
admits to the full cost of the rules it promulgates.
Since the beginning of President Obama's, Lisa Jackson's, and Gina
McCarthy's tenure with the Federal Government, the Environmental
Protection Agency has promulgated regulations imposing billions of
dollars in costs on our critical power infrastructure. Famously, the
Environmental Protection Agency has been so out of control that the
President himself was required to intervene and pull the ozone rule in
August of 2011, knowing that the cost to the country far outweighed the
benefits that the Environmental Protection Agency was claiming.
In response to this out-of-control agency, Dr. Cassidy has carefully
crafted H.R. 1582, the Energy Consumers Relief Act, which would add
another measure of protection for consumers legitimately frightened of
whether or not they will be able to afford their air-conditioning this
summer or their heating this fall, or even to turn on their lights at
nighttime.
The bill is straightforward. It requires that, before promulgating a
final rule that would impose an aggregate cost of $1 billion on the
American people, the Environmental Protection Agency must consult with
the Secretary of Energy, a Cabinet member who will be working for the
very same President as the Administrator at the Environmental
Protection Agency. The Energy Secretary must then determine that the
rule before him would not cause significant adverse effects to the
economy or to electric reliability, as is his job. That's what his
mission statement is as the top energy official for our country.
For too long, the Environmental Protection Agency has dictated our
energy policy rather than simply our environmental policy. Former
Energy Secretary Steven Chu seemed to have no problem passively
delegating his job to Lisa Jackson. I suppose he was too busy losing
America's money to solar companies. The era of the Environmental
Protection Agency dictating energy policy must end, and this bill is a
solid step toward that goal.
Mr. Speaker, American consumers are struggling. They watch the cost
of food as it rises right before their eyes. They watch the gas prices.
Where are they going? Nowhere but up. They watch their electricity
bills. They are also going up. There is no relief in sight on the
horizon under this President and this administration.
House Republicans have not abandoned their promises to protect
consumers from an out-of-control bureaucracy imposing cost after cost
on the American people. Today's legislation is yet another few arrows
in the quiver to stop the Federal Government from taking more money out
of Americans' pockets.
As I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes''
on the two underlying bills, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Burgess) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to begin my remarks by correcting my friend from Texas
with reference to his 1-minute statement previous to the time that we
began the rule.
As I understood him, he said that for the last 20 months, Democrats
have controlled every level of power. Somewhere along the line, I think
my friend must be very confused about what the responsibilities of the
United States House of Representatives is and are.
That said, my recollection is that in this Congress, which has
consumed 6 months, and in the previous one, which took 2 years, that my
friends in the Republican Party have controlled the House of
Representatives. Unless there is no longer one level of power in
Washington, something is misunderstood by me.
Mr. Speaker, the House faces a number of pressing issues that have
bipartisan support and that we could be addressing in our limited time
before the August recess. For example, we could be reforming in a
comprehensive manner our Nation's immigration system. We could be
ending the sequester. I have not met a Democrat or a Republican that
did not say that the sequester was a bad idea. We could be addressing
the doubling of student loan interest rates. We could be having a
conference on a farm bill, or we could be appointing--something that I
still find very strange--we could be appointing budget conferees.
It used to be that having a conference around this place was a real
opportunity for Members, and Members sought to be on the conference. I
know my first experience I was fascinated by the fact that I'm on a
conference with the other body, the United States Senate. Little did I
know that their rules provided for them to vote by proxy, but I came to
learn that perhaps it wasn't as important as I thought it was, but it
is important to the process.
But for any of these important issues to be addressed, Members would
have to work together to resolve their differences. Instead, we're
spending our time on two bills that my friends across the aisle know
will never become law. I don't have to be a betting person to bet
anybody in this institution that what we are discussing here today will
not become the law of the land. The reason that I know that is we've
already done it four times, this same measure, and it didn't see the
light of day in the other body. This one ain't going to either.
These bills today show what I've been saying for quite some time now,
and it's that my Republican colleagues really are not manifesting
interest in actually fixing our country's problems. In fact, it seems
that they're more happy to simply bring Congress to a standstill and
call that success.
Mr. Speaker, political victories are not victories for struggling
families. In case these bills are not clear enough evidence, my friends
recently released their messaging plan for the August work period in
our respective districts. That plan is called ``Fighting Washington for
All Americans.'' Wow. Despite the irony, I would almost want to call it
hypocrisy of sitting Members of Congress trying to paint themselves as
outsiders and reformers while ignoring their key role in creating the
gridlock. Fighting Washington for All Americans urges Members to
consider Washington as a place where nothing good happens, so the less
governing that gets done, the better. Yet these two bills today
completely contradict those ideas.
H.R. 1582 gives the Department of Energy unprecedented authority to
veto Environmental Protection Agency-related regulations. Not only does
the bill prevent the EPA from finalizing critical public health and
environmental rules, it instructs the Department of Energy to conduct a
duplicative and convoluted analysis without any new resources. These
are the people that say bureaucracy is a problem, and yet they're
creating additional bureaucracy within the framework of these two
measures.
{time} 1315
I said yesterday in the Rules Committee I would be astounded at how
much time it's going to take the Energy Department and the EPA to
coordinate their efforts. Evidently, these people haven't been trying
to talk to these bureaucrats the way that I have over the course of
time, and it requires, this measure does, extra examination, despite
the Office of Management and Budget's interagency review of all
regulations, which includes the Department of Energy, in the review of
EPA rules.
I did a little research, Mr. Speaker, on how many times over the
course of the time that I've been here that Members on the other side
have offered measures, that did not become law, to abolish the
Department of Energy. Hear me loud and clear: to abolish the Department
of Energy.
Now we come today, after that having been done numerous times, we
come today and the Energy Department is the answer. These same people
wanted to, I guess everything with an ``E'' that's in the Cabinet, they
wanted the Department of EPA to be abolished at one time, the
Department of Education. They need to change their acronyms over there
or else they'll find themselves abolished, if they don't get past A, B,
C, D--E.
[[Page H4997]]
Not only does the bill prevent the EPA from finalizing critical
public health and environmental rules, it instructs the Department of
Energy to do, as I said, duplicative measures.
As for H.R. 2218, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act, the
second bill being considered under this rule today, it encourages, in
my view, a race to the bottom, where the State willing to have the
least protections will become the dumping ground for the entire
country.
I said last night that I would be mad today. I tempered myself with
my passion over my reflections of my comments in the Rules Committee,
but I cannot but return to them when I think of the community that I
live in, and have lived in for now coming up on 51 years, where every
one of the Superfund Brownfields was in the minority community. Every
dump that ever dumped anything in Broward County was in minority
communities--treatment waste across the street from where I live, and I
guess perhaps these people have not had those experiences.
While there are certainly inefficiencies within the Federal
Government--and they are numerous--the 2008 coal ash spill in Kingston,
Tennessee, is evidence that the Environmental Protection Agency has an
important role to play in protecting our Nation's public health.
This bill would allow States to undertake permitting programs for the
management of coal ash; and let me talk about what's in coal ash.
People seem to think that coal ash is all of this great stuff. Coal ash
has in it mercury, lead, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, if you can say
that. These are things that are poisonous. And yes, it is true that we
have managed under the regulations to constrain ourselves with many of
these products that have been utilized for benefit, but do not mistake
arsenic and cadmium and lead for anything other than harmful products.
The Federal environmental standards that are put forward here do not
take into contemplation how important it is to establish uniform
protections for our Nation's health and environment.
Let me return to the Kingston, Tennessee, situation. The Tennessee
Valley Authority is still paying in excess of $1 billion, somewhere in
the neighborhood of $1.2 billion for taking this stuff and dumping it
in Uniontown, Alabama, 100 feet from where people live; and, I suggest,
as is the case in the community that I am privileged to serve, where
people that are friends of mine have died as a result of not coal ash
but dumps being in their communities and incinerators burning it, and
it's the same in many respects.
I compliment Florida Power & Light, the largest utility in my State,
for destroying their two coal ash plants in Fort Lauderdale, and we
still find that Florida Power & Light still manages their business well
enough to make handsome profits.
As far as electric rates going up, I would suggest to my friend, it's
sort of like health care measures. And I continue to ask everybody,
tell me the day, before there was anything called ObamaCare, tell me
the day when your insurance rates for health went down. Tell me the day
that your utilities went down. I don't recall any period where that
happened; and somewhere along the line, we need to address these things
in meaningful ways.
Different standards in each State provide an economic incentive to
send coal ash to the State with the lowest level of regulation. This
bill will not ensure the safe disposal of coal ash or make current law
any stronger.
Fighting Washington--that's what you're getting ready to say in
August--does not keep our air and water clean. Fighting Washington does
not provide the sick with medical treatment. Fighting Washington does
not keep Wall Street from preying on the American people. Fighting
Washington does not provide student loans for children who aren't going
to be able to return to school this year because of the prohibitive
costs.
Fighting Washington does not provide immigration reform in a
comprehensive manner. And somewhere along the line we have to
understand there are more than 11 million people in this country that
are here illegally. And I can point to you people that work right
around this Capitol--and a few that are in it--that we rely upon, that
we need to straighten this law out about. But we prefer to fight
Washington.
Fighting Washington doesn't help the Centers for Disease Control
prevent us from having diseases. At Robert E. Lee High School in
Fairfax County, one of the best counties for education in this country,
they've had a recall of students for tuberculosis, something I thought
we had pretty much abolished. But when we can't find the necessary
research money and we can't find the necessary provisions--largely
because we're fighting Washington--then we're going to have other
outbreaks like that that we have to contend with.
Fighting Washington doesn't provide the National Institutes of Health
the things to do to provide women's health and male research in order
for us to better the health of the United States of America.
Fighting Washington makes for great talking points, and might even
make for great fundraising. It might make for a good bumper sticker,
but it is far from a serious strategy to actually make this country
better. A better title than ``Fighting Washington for Americans'' would
be ``Washington Fighting for Americans.''
Now this do-nothing Congress, and I've been here 21 years, is giving
new meaning to do nothing. And all of this repealing things didn't just
start this year. Next week, we'll be back here on the floor talking
more repeal. We're going to have something called the REINS Act. We're
real good up here at naming things--R-E-I-N-S. We're going to be doing
some more repealing.
But in the 112th Congress--I looked back--we had 137 votes to block
actions to prevent pollution. We had 55 votes targeted at the
Department of Energy. We had 57 votes to defund or repeal clean energy
initiatives. We had 47 votes to promote offshore drilling. We had 81
votes targeted at the Department of the Interior. We had 87 votes to
undermine protections for public lands and wilderness. We had 53 votes
to block actions that address climate change. We had 38 votes to
dismantle the Clean Water Act. So 317 repeal votes. I've changed you-
all's name. It's no longer the Republicans; it's the ``Repealicans.''
You must be people that just repeal.
And over in the other body, they're ``Republistructionists'' because
their whole objective--and that gets ignored here when we start talking
about who's responsible for what. It gets ignored that the minority in
the other body has arcane rules that permit them to block everything,
and that's what they've done, everything you haven't blocked or sought
to repeal. Here we have been trying to get health care for people, and
you-all are voting to repeal health care 39 different times.
I'm tired of voting on that kind of stuff. I want to vote on
something that's going to provide some jobs for America. I want to vote
on something that's going to help some students have some jobs when
they get out of school. I want to vote on something that's going to
allow for technology and innovation to catch up with what's going on in
the world. I want to make sure that we exact our responsibilities,
particularly with reference to education.
I just left a meeting with homeless providers and nonprofits. I want
to make sure that there's Meals on Wheels. I want to vote on something
to make sure that every child has an equal opportunity for a very good
education in this country. I want to vote on something that's going to
look 50 years down the road to what America looks like, and not 50
months from now, or not 1 month from now in August when you're going to
be fighting Washington.
I'm going to be up here with you in Washington, and we are consummate
insiders, and it's ridiculous for you to go home and try to tell
somebody you're anything other than that. And you do control one-third
of the legislative body. And you do have exacting responsibilities
given to you under Article I that you're not exercising. You have the
Ways and Means' ability. You have the numbers to undertake to do those
things.
So, yeah, I'm mad. And I think many in America are mad, too, with a
Congress that's doing nothing.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute for a couple of
brief responses.
First off, I don't know whether the gentleman misheard or only caught
me
[[Page H4998]]
in midsentence. I was responding to the minority leader's statement
about this September is the 4-year anniversary of the crash in the
economy, and the preceding 20 months, from September of 2008, in the
Congress, all of the levers of power were handled by the Democrats.
Now, on this issue of fighting Washington, good strategy, bad
strategy, I can't address that. But I do know what's going on out in
this country--people are frightened of Washington. They're not fighting
Washington; they are scared. Why are they scared? What are they seeing
with the NSA? What do they see with the TSA when they go to the
airport? What are they seeing with the IRS? Nobody likes the IRS to
start with, but now people are concerned that their First Amendment
rights are going to be trampled by an out-of-control Federal agency.
And I have to tell you what, Mr. Speaker, it all devolves back to the
administration. Yeah, the Congress has its own problems, but the
administration is actually what is driving the frightening of America,
not the fighting of America.
I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
McKinley).
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule.
For over 33 years, Congress has wrestled unproductively on how to
deal with coal ash, which is an unavoidable by-product of burning coal.
The bill before us today provides a resolution, finally, to this
issue and avoids kicking the can down the road.
H.R. 2218 has two parts. The first part codifies the previous EPA
studies that were conducted in 1993 and 2000 under Bill Clinton, both
of them. I have copies of it here. And perhaps those that need to read
those reports would understand that in the 1993 and in the 2000
reports, they concluded that coal ash is a nonhazardous material and
should be beneficially recycled for use in products such as concrete
block, brick, wallboard, and used in our roads and bridges across
America.
The second part, unfortunately they're not aware of it yet, but if
they'd read the bill, they would find that it has been significantly
rewritten since last year. We listened to what people were saying. We
listened to the EPA, we listened to the administration, and
incorporated those into this bill, so that this second part now
provides for all new and existing landfills to be State run, using a
Federal law known as RCRA, which in and of itself incorporates the
Federal guidelines for protecting ``human health and the environment.''
Consequently, disposal requirements under H.R. 2218 will require
composite liners, dust control, groundwater monitoring, financial
assurances, emergency action plans, inspections, and structural
stability, just to name a few. In fact, the EPA states that RCRA's
primary goals are to:
Protect human health and the environment, to reduce the
amount of waste generated, and to ensure that wastes are
managed in an environmentally sound manner.
{time} 1330
For the first time, there will be a uniform national standard for
disposing of coal ash. However, as you just heard, you hear opponents
of this legislation state this legislation does not protect human
health and the environment. But quite frankly, that's not the case.
H.R. 2218 not only includes nine different references and sections of
RCRA which protect human health and environment, but also incorporates
the existing RCRA part 258 regulation.
To use the words of the EPA, ``EPA believes that part 258 criteria
represents a reasonable balance ensuring the protection of human health
and the environment.''
The opponents of this measure seem to lack a fundamental
understanding, Mr. Speaker. There are jobs at stake here, 316,000 jobs
across America. It's really that simple.
A compromise is available. Anyone who opposes this rule will continue
to support the status quo. If we do nothing, coal ash, which is
generated every day in 48 of the 50 States, will continue to be
disposed of. The status the way it's been since the 1950s and '60s and
the unwarranted stigma that's associated with recycled materials will
continue.
Fortunately, finally, today, after listening and compromising and
working together, there appears to be an emerging consensus to allow
for the beneficial recycle of coal ash, and the concerns raised by a
previous Congress have been addressed.
Mr. Speaker, after 33 years of fussing with this issue, it's time to
put it to rest.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
And would the Speaker be kind enough to tell both sides how much time
we have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 13\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 17\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Several of our colleagues, including the previous speaker, are
suggesting that this bill is better than previous versions. But this is
actually the worst version yet from a public health and environmental
perspective.
All you have to do is look at the Statement of Administration Policy
to see how this bill has gotten worse. The administration is concerned
that there's no clear and appropriate authority for taking corrective
action on unlimited or leaking impoundments or units.
Unlike H.R. 2273, from the last Congress, this says that an unlined
impoundment that is found to be contaminating groundwater only has to
close after alternative disposal capacity is available at the same
site. Well, many of these facilities don't have the space for
additional capacity at the same site. That means that the pollution can
go on for years, or even indefinitely.
This bill is the worst version of coal ash legislation yet. That's
why all the environmental groups oppose this legislation. They even
sent a letter to the House today that states, ``This bill is more
dangerous to human health and environment than previous versions of
this legislation.''
Mr. Speaker, I'm very sad today. One of my college classmates is
being funeralized, or has been funeralized as we are speaking. Her
funeral was at 11 o'clock. She lives in a community called Golden
Heights. In Golden Heights, in a 2-square mile radius from a dump that
dumped into that community for a considerable period of time, the
incidence of cancer of dear friends of mine, male and female, is
inordinately high by comparison to any other place in the State of
Florida.
Something is wrong with the picture of continuing to pollute and to
not be mindful of who are the victims of that pollution.
Mr. Speaker, I make the distinction that I was not talking about coal
ash, and I'm glad I don't live near one of those places where they are
dumping like in Uniontown, Alabama.
If we defeat the previous question, I'm going to offer an amendment
to the rule to bring up H.R. 2070, Representative Tim Bishop's bill to
protect consumers from price gouging at the gas pump.
To discuss his bill, I would like now to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), my friend.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I rise in opposition to the rule, and urge my colleagues to defeat
the previous question so that the House can consider pro-consumer, job-
protecting legislation, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act, which
would deter the sale of gasoline at excessive prices.
I introduced this legislation so that my constituents and Long Island
businesses are not harmed by unscrupulous business practices designed
solely to increase profit margins.
My constituents are facing rising prices at nearly every turn, on top
of stagnated wage growth. They're worried about paying for college,
paying the mortgage, saving for retirement, or just paying for
groceries. They're also wondering what Congress is doing for them to
create jobs and to raise their standard of living.
AAA estimates gas prices are expected to increase as the summer
continues. In fact, AAA reports that the average price per gallon is up
to $4 on Long Island from $3.87 a week ago. This comes as Americans are
heading to Long Island's beaches, historic villages, and open spaces.
Excessive gas
[[Page H4999]]
prices will cost Long Island businesses and jobs, and that's something
that we cannot let happen on Long Island or anywhere else in this
country.
The east coast is also in the midst of hurricane season, which can
bring out the unscrupulous who would take advantage of hardworking
families, as we witnessed in the aftermath of Sandy. In fact, just this
week a New York State judge fined one Long Island gas station, and two
others have reached settlements with the New York Attorney General's
Office for price gouging.
This Congress should protect those harmed by natural disasters so
they don't have to worry about price gouging while they rebuild their
homes, communities, businesses, and livelihoods. Let's do it now before
the next crisis erupts.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question,
support consumers and jobs, and support the Federal Price Gouging
Prevention Act.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds for
response, pending which I'm going to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady
from West Virginia.
In the brief 7 months that I have spent on the Rules Committee in
this Congress, there's only one time where the administration has not
issued a veto threat to legislation we were considering under the Rules
Committee. This is H.R. 2218, Mr. McKinley's bill. They voiced
problems, but they did not issue a veto threat. That is a red letter
day in this institution.
Every other piece of legislation that's come to the floor has done so
under a threat of a veto by the administration.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs.
Capito).
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule
and the two underlying energy bills that the House will consider today.
I'm a proud cosponsor of both of these bills because they will protect
West Virginia jobs and prevent increases in electricity costs for many
of those millions of folks across this country that cannot afford it.
My colleague, Mr. McKinley, has worked tirelessly to see that H.R.
2218 has met the demands and answered the questions.
And to my colleague from Florida, when he stated that he's glad he
doesn't live in these areas, guess what? We do. So it's exceedingly
important to us that we do this the right way. And that's why I'm
supporting the framework for state regulation that will ensure that
coal ash will be used productively.
I visited the Sutton Dam in my district for its 50-year anniversary.
And I can tell you, I was there when it was built, and I was there 50
years later. As they were describing the Sutton Dam and how successful
it's been--and it's still a fortress of strength, holding the water
back--they started talking about the construction materials used 50
years ago.
And guess what?
Coal ash was one of those construction materials that was used to
strengthen this dam, and to also have it stand the test of time.
So, I think the regulatory uncertainty that's been around for years
about what to do about coal ash has really cut the use of coal ash by
millions of tons. But also, wouldn't we rather be recycling and reusing
this in a productive measure, rather than increasing the impoundments
and increasing any kind of risk to the environment?
This bill just makes perfect sense.
And the second bill addresses the growing number of billion-dollar
EPA rules. In my view, billion-dollar EPA rules have two major costs:
costs of jobs, and the cost to seniors and those on fixed incomes and
the folks who are trying to heat their homes or cool their homes to be
able to meet the high cost of electricity. So these make great sense to
me.
I'm very proud of my colleague from West Virginia for bringing this
to the floor for the fifth time, and it will pass again.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
The previous speaker is a person that, there are few in Congress that
I have greater respect for. I certainly understand the dynamics of
living in communities. In my judgment, she's absolutely correct that
what we should be doing is everything we can to constructively make
sure that we are about the business of ensuring the health of the
communities that we live in.
So, to that degree, while I stand by my position that I'm glad I
don't live next to these facilities, unfortunately, I live close to,
and have for some time, facilities that have been harmful that claimed
that they were protecting the health and the environment of people.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee, my friend from
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) said something that I would like to correct.
He'll be down here, I'm sure, later today or whenever this measure
comes up. He noted that the Environmental Protection Agency testified
``that they do not oppose'' this coal ash bill.
I want to make sure that everyone knows that the Environmental
Protection Agency said that because they are not permitted to take a
position on legislation, only the administration is allowed to say they
support or oppose legislation. And in the administration position last
night, they did not say that they don't support the coal ash bill, nor
was it a veto threat.
I would urge my colleague from Texas to point me to the time that
Barack Obama has vetoed something.
One of the things, I've been on that committee--he's been there 7
months. I've been there years, and I've been there with other
Presidents, and it is not uncommon for Congress to propose and to have
the administration oppose and vice versa.
Mr. Speaker, both of these bills before us today are so tilted toward
commercial operations that they reflect a warped sense of what is
important to the people in this great country of ours. These bills
undermine environmental laws that have been proven to protect
communities and provide for the development of energy to run America.
While we need to develop laws that promote energy and commerce, snide
commentary regarding failed policies at the Department of Energy
ignores the number of successes through the years under different
administrations and this one that the Department of Energy has put
forward.
We cannot, in many respects, develop laws that promote energy and
commerce and ignore the consequences of those activities. Pollution is
not equivalent to progress.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the
underlying bills, and I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment to the rule in the Record, along with extraneous material
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' and to stop being ``Repealicans'' and be about the business of
trying to do something constructive in this House of Representatives.
I would ask them to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I
urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we all know, in order for this economy to flourish,
energy has to be available and energy has to be affordable.
Unfortunately, the situation we've seen in recent years is anything but
that.
The Department of Energy was created back in the 1970s in response to
the Arab oil embargo. The Department of Energy was created to deal with
the situation of scarcity.
{time} 1345
Unfortunately, the Department of Energy has not evolved since that
time. And where do we find ourselves today? We find ourselves right on
the threshold, right on the horizon of America being an energy
exporter, again, for the first time in a couple of decades. That's a
huge change.
Has the Department of Energy changed and kept pace with the reality
that is going on in development of energy in State lands, private
lands, and, yes, some Federal lands? Have they kept pace with the
development within the industry? I submit they have not. I submit that
they have been an impediment.
[[Page H5000]]
Yes, I'd be happy to work on improving where the Department of Energy
could be, in fact, a facilitator rather than an obstruction for
developing energy for our economy. Because we know without available
and affordable energy, the promise that the economy can create the
number of jobs that it needs to create--not just to replace those jobs
that have been lost, but all of those people who are getting to the age
where they expect a job to be there for them--and without that energy
production, it's not going happen.
Now, I do want to talk about the other bill that's before us today,
Dr. Cassidy's bill, H.R. 1582. Let's think about this for a minute. The
Congress works its will on a bill. It becomes law. That law then goes
to the regulatory agency. They work their will on the bill. And we all
know the story. A thousand-page bill here on the floor of the House can
generate 10,000 pages of regulation in the Federal Register.
I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker, but it's hard to discipline
myself to wake up every morning and read what was written in the
Federal Register the day before. The American people who are out there
creating and producing certainly don't have time to do that.
But when these rules are then visited upon the people, what happens
then? Well, they just simply have to accept the effect of those rules.
Congress did that a couple of years ago. They are not playing in that
arena any longer.
Here's what Dr. Cassidy says. He says that before promulgating a
final rule that would impose an aggregate cost of $1 billion on the
American people, the Administrator of the EPA has to consult with the
Secretary of Energy. This seems like a logical and straightforward
maneuver. In fact, we will talk about the REINS Act in the weeks to
come. And they have to come back to Congress and get us to either say
``yes'' or ``no'' on that regulation that is going to have such a
profound effect on the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I've been in business before. I've made investments
before. I know very well if someone comes to investors with a cash call
and says you're going to have to pony up a lot more money here, the
very least that the investor expects at that point is a pro forma, a
profit and loss sheet, or some reasonable expectation that there can be
a return on investment.
You say, Wait a minute, nobody's coming to the American people with a
cash call. Well, it's called April 15. And it is a cash call. And we
owe them that scrutiny. The Congress owes them that scrutiny; the
Department of Energy owes them that scrutiny. I would assert we owe
them an up-or-down vote on those regulations that are going to have
such a profound effect on the economy.
Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of two
critical bills ensuring that the American people are not further
penalized by out-of-control policies coming out of the Environmental
Protection Agency. Consumers need relief, it is clear.
For that reason, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the previous question, an
``aye'' vote on the rule, and an ``aye'' vote on the two underlying
bills.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:
An amendment to H. Res. 315 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
2070) to protect consumers from price-gouging of gasoline and
other fuels, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and
reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then
on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately
after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of
rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 2070.
THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT IT REALLY MEANS
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against Ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BURGESS. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 191, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 399]
YEAS--224
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
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
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
[[Page H5001]]
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
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
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--191
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
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
Clyburn
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
Holt
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
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--18
Barletta
Bustos
Campbell
Cardenas
Carter
Coble
Cohen
Grimm
Herrera Beutler
Horsford
McCarthy (NY)
Pallone
Rokita
Rush
Schock
Sewell (AL)
Speier
Whitfield
{time} 1413
Messrs. McINTYRE and LARSON of Connecticut, Ms. MENG, and Mr.
GARAMENDI changed their votes from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. GRAVES of Missouri and CULBERSON changed their votes from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall
vote 399, if present, I would have voted ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232,
noes 188, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 400]
AYES--232
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
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
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
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)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--188
Andrews
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
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
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
[[Page H5002]]
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
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
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Barletta
Bustos
Campbell
Coble
Grimm
Herrera Beutler
Horsford
McCarthy (NY)
Owens
Pallone
Rokita
Simpson
Tipton
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1422
Mr. LOEBSACK changed his vote from ``present'' to ``no.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________