[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 18, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H5600-H5606]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 761, NATIONAL STRATEGIC AND 
                CRITICAL MINERALS PRODUCTION ACT OF 2013

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 347 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 347

       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. 761) to require the Secretary of the Interior 
     and the Secretary of Agriculture to more efficiently develop 
     domestic sources of the minerals and mineral materials of 
     strategic and critical importance to United States economic 
     and national security and manufacturing competitiveness. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural 
     Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. 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 
     Natural Resources 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 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the 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. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members have 5 
legislative days in which they may revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a 
structured rule for consideration of H.R. 761, the National Strategic 
and Critical Minerals Production Act. It provides one hour of general 
debate, equally divided between both sides. It provides for five 
amendments, four of which are Democrat amendments and one is a 
Republican amendment. So this rule is fair to a fault and it is totally 
generous, and it will provide a balanced and open debate as long as we, 
as Members, structure our remarks to the merits of this particular bill 
and don't go off on tangents.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to stand before the House and 
support this rule. It's a good rule.
  I also support the underlying bill, H.R. 761, and I want to 
congratulate the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei), as sponsor of this 
particular piece of legislation, as well as the chairman of the Natural 
Resources Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for 
his leadership in this particular effort.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation is blessed with an abundance of resources, 
which has made us a leading world economy and industrial power, and we 
have only scratched the surface, literally, of what we can potentially 
develop.
  We have energy potential such as coal, oil shale, and natural gas 
deposits, as well as various critical minerals that we, as a Nation, 
need and should be developing.
  But unfortunately, much of this development of our domestic mineral 
resources has actually been stymied by a combination of special 
interest politics, as well as bureaucratic red tape, particularly under 
this administration. It is a pain we have all seen coming.
  Twenty-five years ago, 20 percent of all money that was spent for 
development and production of critical minerals was spent here in the 
United States. Today that's down to only 8 percent, as other nations 
have replaced our efforts, unfortunately.
  This has meant an increase in our trade imbalance, dollars going 
overseas, escalating prices here at home for both energy and 
commodities. It means job losses here in the United States. And 
ironically, these jobs that we are losing are some of the highest-
paying middle class jobs that are available. Bureaucratic delays are 
causing this, and they are causing us to see a change, both for 
manufacturing and defense.
  Twenty-five years ago, there were 30 minerals that we actually had to 
import to this Nation that were considered critical minerals. Today 
that number has gone from 30 to 61.
  Twenty-five years ago, there were 16 minerals that we imported a 
great majority of. Today that number that has gone to 24.
  It affects manufacturing, such as electronics and metal alloys, 
ceramics, glass, magnets, catalysts, everything. It affects our defense 
as well, as our Defense Logistics Agency tries to

[[Page H5601]]

stockpile these minerals so the demands are there when we actually need 
them.
  Unfortunately, as we've illustrated, more and more of these are being 
purchased from overseas. They are critical to our weapons development 
system, including such things as night vision equipment, advanced 
lasers, avionics, fighter jet components, missile guidance systems, and 
it goes on and on.
  Look, the Constitution tells us that our first responsibility is to 
provide for a common defense. This bill steps us into the right 
direction so we actually can provide for a common defense and do it 
intelligently and avoid unnecessary and frivolous delays.
  There are some that will criticize us for the kinds of minerals that 
we are placing in this restriction area. There was a study in 2009 that 
was done called the Great California ShakeOut, which was a mock of what 
could happen if the big earthquake actually hit that area, and it found 
out that, in an effort to try and rebuild the infrastructure that would 
be necessary, there's a whole list of things we normally don't consider 
as critical that would, in that situation, be critical, including sand 
and gravel, that we simply would have a frightful deficiency of if we 
were trying to rebuild under those types of critical situations.
  This bill anticipates that, and makes sure that we will not be found 
lacking, either in defense, or in manufacturing, or in critical 
civilian needs in case of disaster.
  This bill doesn't predetermine anything. It simply says, make a 
decision, yes or no, on whether this project should go forward; simply 
make a decision, and do it in a timely fashion.
  We still, today, average between 7 and 10 years in which those 
decisions are made. This bill says that that is unrealistic, and it 
simply says, you've got 30 months--2\1/2\ years--to make a decision, 
yes or no. If you have to have an extension, it provides for that on 
common agreement, which is only rational to do. But for heaven's sakes, 
finally make a decision.
  It is based on not only what we are talking about here, but it's 
based on what we are doing in our transportation area. It's based on a 
Presidential concept; when the President established an Executive Order 
No. 13604, which talked about the importance of trying to streamline 
reform and reference our process.
  This is the basis of what we are attempting to do in this particular 
bill as well. This implies that whenever there are agencies, multiple 
agencies involved in a project, that there must be a lead agency which 
must take the responsibility of actually getting the job done, so that 
any kind of environmental statement should be being done currently, not 
sequentially, that we can make sure that any kind of lawsuit does not 
stop the process of making a decision.
  Once again, this is one of those things that simply is logical. Just 
make a decision. You have plenty of time to do it. Make a decision. 
There is no reason we cannot make a decision on whether to go forward 
on a project in 2\1/2\ years, none, none whatsoever.
  The fact that we are dragging our feet is simply done from 
bureaucratic excess that is illogical and irrational. We have done this 
in other areas. This is the time to do this in this area as well.
  If, indeed, we could do this process, it would be very clear that 
this Nation would prosper. We could have good-paying jobs, and we could 
make the desert blossom.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the 
gentleman from Utah, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and, Mr. 
Speaker, I yield myself such time as I deem necessary.
  Mr. Speaker, the House faces a number of pressing issues that 
everybody in America knows that we should be addressing. Instead, we 
are here today on H. Res. 347, a structured rule, and the underlying 
bill, H.R. 761, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production 
Act of 2013.

  I get it that my friends from areas that have these minerals in 
public spaces would like for us to proceed apace to extract them. I 
understand their feelings. I come from yet another of the critical 
areas of our country that we have to protect much of the space of, and 
that would be the Everglades.
  I don't understand why Congress is trying to provide even more breaks 
to the United States mining operations when we do have these urgent 
domestic issues that we are confronted with and, somehow or another, 
that we were unable to undertake.
  We haven't done all of our appropriations. We are having difficulty 
getting a continuing resolution. We will soon be faced with lifting the 
debt ceiling. And somehow or another, we are dealing with something 
that, I might add, we have voted on before, that came out of the House 
of Representatives, that did not pass the Senate, and H.R. 761 is not 
going to pass the Senate either.
  So H.R. 761 guts important environmental protections offered through 
the National Environmental Policy Act, referred to as NEPA. It fails to 
require adequate financial assurance, and I will have an amendment on 
the floor that will address that subject, and offers other benefits to 
mining companies.
  Mining operations in the United States benefit already from multiple 
Federal tax breaks, exemptions to regulation under existing 
environmental laws, and no royalty payments to the United States for 
mining operations, even on U.S. land.
  Mining companies limit their liability for environmental restoration 
and cleanup by operating with U.S. subsidiaries to foreign parent 
companies. This relationship shields the parent company from liability 
and has allowed parent companies to draw profits from United States 
mining operations.
  So what happens when companies do not pay for environmental damage 
caused by their operations?
  The people of the United States pay. They pay through a contaminated 
environment. They pay through sickness, including cancer. They pay 
through taxes, because taxpayer dollars are ultimately needed to clean 
up these sites.
  It would seem that we should have learned from our mistakes with the 
1872 General Mining Law. Mining companies should be held accountable so 
that their operations will not impose additional burdens on the 
American people.
  H.R. 761 not only takes away valued natural resources for hiking, 
fishing, canoeing and other recreational activities, it shifts the 
burdens of mining cleanup and restoration to the American taxpayer.
  Furthermore, H.R. 761 classifies domestic mining operations for 
strategic and critical minerals on Federal lands as infrastructure 
projects. Using a broad definition that encompasses virtually every 
type of mine, this legislation allows mines to take advantage of a 
Presidential order from 2012 which requires Federal agencies to 
streamline the permitting process for infrastructure projects.
  However, building a mine is not the same as building roads and 
highways that are much needed in this country, or replacing rotted 
sewerage that is much needed in this country, which is, in fact, the 
country's infrastructure.
  Bills like this are why, in my opinion, the American people are so 
frustrated with us here in the United States Congress. We have a number 
of issues that we could--no, not that we could, that we should be 
working on--and, yet, we are rehashing a bill that went nowhere last 
Congress, ain't gonna go nowhere this Congress and, most importantly, 
is bad for the Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  I just want to make a couple of comments before we go on with the 
discussion of this particular rule, which, once again, is a fair rule 
and is a good rule.
  This bill is one of those bills that has no significant cost to the 
budget. At no time does this stop any of the NEPA requirements. All it 
says is, do your job and do it on time. Nothing big about that, simply 
what those regulations are.
  And it is obviously one of those things that takes place that we 
desperately need, both for the manufacturing sector, as well as for 
defense.
  Look, I'm old. I still use legal pads. I trust those. They never 
crash on me. But if you have an iPhone or an iPad or any of that other 
kind of new stuff that my kids like to have, you're going to

[[Page H5602]]

have these critical minerals. And if we are not proposing and 
developing them here in the United States, we are paying more to 
develop them out of country, and we're putting ourselves, 
manufacturing-wise, in a significant deficit situation. And obviously, 
with the defense, what is happening is even more critical.
  This is simply taking the executive order and saying, yeah, it's good 
for infrastructure; it's also good for our critical mineral development 
system, and saying, do the job. Do it well, do it quickly, get it done 
in a reasonable period of time, and don't drag this stuff out by 
sequencing the issues and the actions one after the other. You have a 
period of time. Do your job.
  It's an amazing concept of asking the bureaucracy of this Nation to 
actually do their job, but it's important.
  Yes, it was passed in the last session by an overwhelming bipartisan 
vote. It's a bipartisan bill. The fact that the Senate did not take it 
up is another indictment to Senate leadership, admittedly, an oxymoron, 
but it's another indictment for the Senate leadership for ignoring the 
significant issues that we have to face in this Nation. It's another 
indictment that they should actually do their job.
  Just because the Senate leadership decides to sit on these type of 
issues does not mean we have to sit on them as well. This is something 
we have to have, and it needs to go over to the Senate. If it has to go 
over every week to the Senate until the Senate finally decides to 
actually do something, then that is our responsibility, and we should 
do it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
improper characterizations of leadership of the other body.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 3 
minutes to my good friend from Oregon, (Mr. DeFazio), the distinguished 
ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman.
  Great name. We're really good at messaging around here, particularly 
on the Republican side. It's got a great name: National Strategic and 
Critical Minerals Production Act of 2013.
  Now we've heard just earlier that this is about things that are in 
critical short supply, vital for our national security and for 
emergencies.

                              {time}  1245

  None of those things are true. They could be a miniscule part of 
this.
  But what this bill does is say that any mining project anywhere on 
any public lands in the United States of America does not constitute a 
significant Federal action. No matter how large, no matter how 
sensitive the area, no matter how proximate to the Grand Canyon and 
national treasures or how proximate to Yellowstone or how proximate to 
some critical watershed, that's not a major Federal action. So it's 
exempt from NEPA. That's one very big problem with this legislation. I 
think there's a lot of members of the public even living in very 
conservative areas of the country who would find that a little bit of 
overreach.
  And then, again, these critical minerals are not critical. Sand and 
gravel are now critical. Anything is critical that you can find on 
public land. Any dirt of any sort, you are going to get an expedited 
process. That's a little bit of overreach.
  We're going to have a great amendment by Mr. Lowenthal, who will use 
an actual definition from the National Research Council for strategic 
and critical minerals. So if this is on the up-and-up, the other side 
will accept that amendment and we will have these expedited processes, 
which still cause us some anxiety; but they will only be for truly 
strategic and critical materials, not everything and anything on any 
public land.
  Secondly, most Americans would be appalled--those who don't already 
know--to learn that we give away all of the minerals on our public 
lands: gold, uranium, platinum. No matter what it is, we give it away. 
We do not charge. Unlike many western States, unlike Native American 
tribal lands, unlike private lands, unlike most foreign countries, we 
don't charge a royalty for extracting minerals from our lands, no 
matter how valuable, no matter how many billions of dollars that that 
load might be worth of platinum or gold or uranium. No charge. Give it 
away.
  Twice this body has passed, on a bipartisan basis, historically, a 
modest royalty on the extraction of depletable valuable minerals from 
Federal lands. I've been very involved in that in the past. In the 
summer, I went to the Rules Committee when this bill was first going to 
come up.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. They admit there are no parliamentary issues, no scoring 
issues. In fact, with my amendment, an 8 percent royalty would raise 
hundreds of millions of dollars. And those hundreds of millions of 
dollars would be used to remediate hundreds of thousands of mines in 
the West that are polluting the environment, polluting our rivers.
  I have a foreign company in my district that, yeah, they put up their 
million-dollar bond. Unfortunately, they left the country, and it's a 
$14 million cleanup. The public is going to get stuck with that. It's 
polluting the river, killing fish, and the taxpayers are going to have 
to pay for it.
  My amendment would have raised the resources necessary to deal with 
hundreds of thousands of abandoned mines in the western United States 
that need remediation and mitigation, but the Republicans were afraid 
to vote on that amendment.
  Some in the West know it's a problem. They didn't want to vote 
against fixing the problem. Others just say you should run the 
government like a business, except when it comes to valuable minerals. 
We want to give them away. We don't really care about the deficit.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. If we defeat the previous question, I'm 
going to offer an amendment to this rule that will allow the House to 
hold a vote on the Bring Jobs Home Act. This bill will help to boost 
the economy by encouraging businesses to bring more jobs to America and 
discourage companies from shipping jobs overseas.
  To discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), my good friend.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Hastings.
  I rise, Mr. Speaker, in strong opposition to the rule and the 
underlying bill before us today, H.R. 761, the National Strategic and 
Critical Minerals Production Act of 2013. I just think it goes too far.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and take up this 
legislation, which we've worked on for a full year now, the Bring Jobs 
Home Act, a bill which, for the first time, makes sure we promote 
insourcing of jobs and stop the corporate welfare business for 
outsourcing jobs.
  The underlying legislation would set a dangerous precedent by waiving 
mining projects from environmental reviews and eliminating public 
access to the justice system itself. Pushing mining projects through 
the permitting process is sure to continue to degrade our environment 
and create workplace situations which are definitely unsafe. But it 
won't solve the employment problem.
  Since that's been injected into the discussion, the legislation will 
simply allow our Nation's resources to be used to pad the pockets of 
the same international corporations who ship jobs overseas; and, by the 
way, that process of shipping jobs overseas is subsidized by the 
Federal Government. We have for years helped corporations send jobs 
overseas. What we should be doing is helping them get jobs back to 
America, particularly since we see an upgrading of the past 16 months 
in the manufacturing sector of our economy.
  With this bill we're going to end the tax breaks that encourage 
companies to ship their jobs overseas and use that to pay for tax 
credits for patriotic companies that want to bring jobs back home. Do 
you want to have real job improvement? This is the way to do it.
  Over the last decade we've lost 5.5 million manufacturing jobs--more 
than during the entire Great Depression. Our trade deficit increased by 
$300 billion. During the recession, the manufacturing workforce 
plummeted to a near 60-year low.

[[Page H5603]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. PASCRELL. More troubling, Mr. Speaker, is that recent studies 
estimate that one-quarter of American jobs are at risk of being 
outsourced in the coming years. We're not talking about chump change 
here. This is a lot of jobs.
  So let's defeat this motion so we can actually debate a bill that 
will end corporate welfare that allows companies to continue to engage 
in outsourcing and then get a tax cut for doing so. Instead, let's 
provide incentives that will grow good-paying manufacturing jobs in the 
USA.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friend if he's 
prepared to close. I have no further speakers at this time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Obviously, I am prepared to close. It depends on 
how long your closing goes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I can make it go as long as you want it to 
go.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Picking up where Mr. Pascrell left off, which I wasn't intending to 
do until my good friend from Utah mentioned the timeframe. Tomorrow, we 
are going to vote on whether or not to cut $40 billion from the 
supplemental nutrition program for people this country. One of the 
measures included in that is going to be that people can only qualify 
for 3 months during a specified period of time if they are able-bodied 
people.
  Well, if you vote for the previous question that Mr. Pascrell 
offered, there may be some jobs for those people. Otherwise, what we're 
getting ready to do is put more people in a position of needing the 
food stamps. And we continue to talk about jobs, but we haven't done 
anything on the infrastructure.
  I predict even if this measure before us today were to become law, 
which it is not, but if it did by chance become law, we would be lucky 
if in the course of time we had the kind of jobs and the number of jobs 
that are desperately needed in this country.
  What is wrong with this institution? Don't we understand that we have 
college kids that are graduating and they can't find a job? We hire 
kids up here at lower than the minimum wage because they can't find 
jobs in the private sector. This is crazy.
  We can't continue doing nothing when in fact the people are suffering 
in this great country of ours. We have not only the natural resources 
that my friends would have us extract from even public lands without 
paying royalties, but we have the resources as a people to do the 
things creatively to assist us in bringing jobs here rather than 
sending them all over the world and causing a diminution of jobs here 
at home.
  Again, for the life of me I don't understand why we are considering 
this bill today. We're considering virtually every mine on public land, 
including uranium and coal mines, to operate without adherence to 
Federal environmental laws, which protect public safety. Our priorities 
are truly in the wrong place.
  As I asked before, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
rule and the underlying legislation, and I ask unanimous consent to 
insert the text of the amendment 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 defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I appreciate the opportunity we have of presenting this particular 
rule to the body. I've always appreciated the opportunity of sharing 
this time with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), who is a good 
friend and a very colorful orator. And I always like to hear his 
orations here on the floor.
  You'll forgive me if I want to try and refocus on the matter that it 
is hand, for, indeed, I recognize the statements that have been made by 
the last two speakers that deal with the significance of jobs. What we 
simply have to have is a policy in this country that promotes private 
sector jobs, not just government sector jobs.
  By promoting private sector jobs, we actually expand the economy and 
build upon that concept. That is one of the reasons why this particular 
bill is here. But all of a sudden you go from 30 minerals that we had 
to import from other areas to 61 minerals that we now have to import 
from abroad. That means there are a bunch of minerals that we used to 
be producing in good, high-paying jobs that no longer are there.
  So this is one of the areas that we can move our country in the 
proper direction and not just simply say, Okay, let's create some kind 
of make-work program that actually adds particular jobs. It needs to be 
the right kind of jobs to move our country forward.
  One person once told me the people sitting here is the entire 
universe with which we talk. We will not make ourselves rich by paying 
each other to take vacations. At some time, someone has to add real 
wealth into the equation. That's what this bill is trying to do. We 
have critical mineral wealth in this country. It needs to be added to 
the equation so that we can create those good-paying mining jobs that 
will spin off into good-paying manufacturing jobs in the private 
sector. That's everything we are attempting to do.
  I would like to take one issue and try to put it to rest as to the 
idea that these companies who would be receiving benefit from this are 
somehow getting off and not paying taxes or royalties. They are not 
paying Federal taxes, but sometimes we forget that we're not the only 
equation out there. Every one of these pays significant royalties and 
severance taxes to State and local governments.

                              {time}  1300

  The Federal tax that is proposed by some of the amendments to this 
bill would be on top of that. It would be a form of double taxation. 
Its goal would be to raise money, which is a nice goal, but simply 
because you found a potential effort for the Federal Government to try 
and raise more money doesn't mean you need to rush into that, 
especially when it has a negative aspect somewhere else. It would have 
a negative aspect on State and local governments. It would also have a 
negative aspect on those companies that some people don't want to have 
any empathy for the situation they're in.
  If you actually put an additional Federal royalty on top of the State 
and local royalty which they are paying and the severance tax that you 
are paying, in a traditional company you could pass that tax burden on 
to the consumer. In a world market, you cannot. That just doesn't 
happen. It has to come out from the company itself.
  The companies who are involved in here have clearly said that they 
are not opposed if we could put some kind of net proceeds up. But these 
kinds of proposals that we will be hearing in the debate today are not 
net proceeds tax; they are an unparalleled, unprecedented gross tax. 
Nothing has ever gone to that level in which the amendments would try 
to put on this program.
  So once again, what we're trying to ask you to do is look at this in 
the overall view of what we are trying to do to develop real and good 
private sector jobs.
  The underlying element still goes back to the fact that, look, what 
we need is to go through the permitting process but to do it in a way 
that is legitimate. It should not have to wait 7 to 10 years to 
actually permit something. That is just unrealistic.
  I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I am an old schoolteacher. As a 
schoolteacher, we had 9 months to do something. If you couldn't get it 
done in 9 months, you didn't get it done. There was no idea of just 
postponing it to a future date. If a principal came to me and said 
we're going to have to have our testing done on Tuesday for the 
standardized test, I couldn't say no, I can't do that; let's wait for 2 
weeks and maybe--maybe--I will be ready to help you with the testing 
data. In any education system, when the time is up, the time is up. You 
have to do the work, and you back-schedule to make sure that you 
actually do the work. That happens in

[[Page H5604]]

almost every element of society except for here in government.
  When I was in the State legislature, we had a constitutional end of 
that State legislative date. We had 45 days to make a decision. Often 
those decisions are not easy and you make the better of the bad choices 
that you have, but we had to make a decision.
  I contrast that with what is happening here in the United States 
Government in which the Forest Service was asked to do a study on a 
potential bridge that we could transfer from Federal ownership over to 
State ownership. They said yes, in about 4 years we would be able to do 
that study. Four years to do a simple study? We give ourselves these 
unreasonable and inexcusable time references, and we do it all the 
time.
  I had a bill that we passed a couple of years ago and which mandated 
that a certain agency of government had to give a piece of property 
over to the local entity of government. Congress passed it. They 
mandated it. Now here, 2\1/2\ years later, the agency still has not 
transferred that land. They are going through their surveys. They are 
taking their time. Even the local government had to pay for all these 
time-consuming surveys. What Congress mandated, 2 years later, still 
has not happened. That is unrealistic. In the private sector, no one 
would tolerate that. In our State government, no one would actually 
tolerate that. In the education community, no one would tolerate that. 
Yet we look at that as the norm, 7 to 10 years, as an average, to 
actually permit these things?
  That is why what this bill is trying to do is say, look, go through 
the process, use the NEPA process, but do it in a fair and rational way 
and make a decision. You don't drag things out just for the fun of 
dragging things out. If the decision is yes, fine; if the decision is 
no, fine; but for heaven's sake, make a decision.
  Some elements of government, whom I will not make caricatures about 
even if it's true, some elements seem to like to drag out decisions. 
This is an area that should not be. So this simply says, if you're 
going to deal with this area, you've got 30 months to make a decision. 
You can do that in 2\1/2\ years. There is no reason why it cannot be.
  We are doing this in other areas of the government. The President, in 
his executive order, said this has to be the way we move forward. This 
bill moves us forward.
  This bill does a good thing. It was right that it passed in the last 
session by a huge bipartisan vote because it's the right thing to do. 
It's the right message. It's the right program. It moves us forward. 
It's the right thing to do this year. And we will continue to push this 
until at some point we have succeeded in making sure that we are moving 
forward with hard deadlines so that decisions are made and we're not 
just piddling and piddling and waiting and delaying time after time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very good bill. It was a good bill last time 
we passed it. It's still a good bill. We need to pass this bill again. 
It's also a very good rule. It's a fair rule. It's a rule for which we 
can be proud.
  I would urge my colleagues to make sure that we vote for this rule so 
we can move forward on a bill that should have been passed by both 
bodies a long time ago. But we need to, once again, start this process 
and continue going forward because it is the right thing to do. It will 
provide us with resources; it will provide us with jobs; it will 
provide us, more importantly, with decisions. Finally, we can actually 
have an agency that makes a decision in a timely manner.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

     An Amendment to H. Res. 347 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     851) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage 
     domestic insourcing and discourage foreign outsourcing. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
     Means. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the 
     Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to 
     no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day 
     the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the 
     Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 851 as specified in section 2 of this 
     resolution.


        the vote on the previous question: what it really means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution. . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. 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 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 347, if 
ordered, and the motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 301.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229, 
nays 192, not voting 11, as follows:

[[Page H5605]]

                             [Roll No. 463]

                               YEAS--229

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     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)
     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
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--192

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     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
     Horsford
     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)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Courtney
     Diaz-Balart
     Herrera Beutler
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Nadler
     Perlmutter
     Polis
     Rangel
     Rush
     Waters

                              {time}  1338

  Mr. VARGAS, Ms. ESHOO, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Mr. 
BARBER, Mrs. CAPPS, Messrs. VEASEY, CUELLAR, and Ms. LOFGREN changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The 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 231, 
noes 190, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 464]

                               AYES--231

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     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
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     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
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--190

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     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
     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
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee

[[Page H5606]]


     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
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     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
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Cardenas
     Cassidy
     Diaz-Balart
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Perlmutter
     Polis
     Rush
     Waters

                              {time}  1345

  Ms. SINEMA changed her vote from ``aye'' 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.

                          ____________________