[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 166 (Wednesday, November 20, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H7267-H7274]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1900, NATURAL GAS PIPELINE
PERMITTING REFORM ACT
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 420 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 420
Resolved, That at any time after 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. 1900) to provide for the timely consideration
of all licenses, permits, and approvals required under
Federal law with respect to the siting, construction,
expansion, or operation of any natural gas pipeline projects.
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 113-25. 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 the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. On any legislative day during the period from
November 22, 2013, through November 29, 2013--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 3. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 2 of
[[Page H7268]]
this resolution as though under clause 8(a) of rule I.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), 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 420 provides for the
consideration of a critical piece of legislation that was passed by the
Committee on Energy and Commerce designed to address the costly and
unnecessary delays which many businesses experience when trying to get
a final determination to be made by the Federal Government in relation
to a pending pipeline.
A member of the committee, Mr. Pompeo from Kansas, the bill's author,
has drafted a meaningful piece of legislation, taking into account the
various competing interests involved in the permitting process and has
found a fair and just balance for ensuring that our critical
infrastructure moves forward.
The rule before us today provides for 1 hour of general debate on the
bill. Five of the six amendments submitted to the Rules Committee were
made in order, all Democratic amendments. The sixth was neither germane
nor did it meet the CutGo rules of the House. Finally, the minority is
afforded the customary motion to recommit on the bill, allowing for yet
another opportunity to amend the legislation.
H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act, is the
product of hours of work with stakeholders that Mr. Pompeo has put in
to improve the legislation. The bill streamlines our Nation's pipeline
permitting processes in an effort to allow for greater capacity and
promote safe infrastructure. Specifically, the bill directs the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission to approve or deny a permit application
for a new natural gas pipeline within 12 months.
Natural gas is one of the clearest examples of how this country can
move itself toward a more sustainable energy-independent future while
at the same time allowing and encouraging our economy to grow. My own
district in north Texas sits 8,000 feet above the Barnett shale, a
natural gas formation that industry has been using to produce gas for
decades. Indeed, due to the technological advances and strong market,
the area that I represent felt few of the effects of the recession
until at least a year after the recession was initiated due to the
booming economy that resulted from the development of the resources
under our feet.
Obviously, with increased production and demand, as we have seen with
the natural gas industry, comes an increased need for infrastructure. I
welcome any legislation which would streamline the permitting process
and allow companies to spend less time with Washington bureaucrats and
more time creating jobs, producing products that consumers want and are
eager to buy.
{time} 1245
Indeed, with the increase in supply that hydraulic fracturing has
created with natural gas, the pace at which the Federal Government has
approved increased infrastructure, namely pipelines, to transport this
commodity has not kept up.
Pipelines provide the safest, fastest, and cleanest mode of
transportation for natural gas, as we in the Energy and Commerce
Committee have heard from witnesses again and again. Making certain
that our country has the number of pipelines necessary for transporting
the gas we need to heat our homes and run our cars is a critical step
toward energy independence.
Moreover, Members of this body who annually support more robust
funding for programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program, commonly referred to as LIHEAP, should be joining with
Republicans today in supporting an increase in pipeline infrastructure
in our country, as the natural gas being produced in Western States
could more efficiently be transported to the Northeastern States,
reducing home heating costs and lessening the need for government
assistance for many families.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is an important bill. It will create
opportunity to put thousands of workers to work, creating the
infrastructure that this country has needed for some time due to the
energy boom in natural gas. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes''
on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas
for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I also rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying
bill.
Mr. Speaker, it appears that this Republican-controlled House of
Representatives is incapable of doing anything that matters in people's
lives. When the history is written on the 113th Congress, especially as
it pertains to the House of Representatives, they have accomplished
nothing. They have made a lot of noise. They shut the government down.
They whine about the health care bill every chance they get, but they
have accomplished absolutely nothing.
And it is frustrating because our country is facing great challenges.
Our economic growth is slower than it should be, thanks to the
Republican shutdown of government, and their willingness to play
politics with the debt ceiling has had a negative impact on our
economy. Job growth is too slow, and we should be working together to
invest in education and in job training and in infrastructure projects
to help put people back to work. We ought to have a long-term highway
bill. I think every Governor in the country, Republican and Democrat,
would agree with me on that statement. Yet this House of
Representatives just seems incapable of accomplishing anything to help
rebuild our infrastructure.
The sequester that my Republican friends embraced has taken a
terrible toll on our science and research programs. Talk to the people
at NIH. Potentially lifesaving research into diseases like cancer and
Parkinson's disease have been crippled, yet there is no urgency over on
the side of my friends on the other side of the aisle to try to do
anything about it. They just sit there and twiddle their thumbs and
life goes on; meanwhile, we are losing our competitive edge in medical
research and in science.
The Senate has passed a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration bill.
The Republican leadership claims that we simply don't have the time to
take it up. That is nonsense. We had time to take up this horrible bill
that my colleague from Iowa (Mr. King) authored that would allow for
the mass deportation of young, undocumented immigrants, the so-called
DREAMers who were brought here as children by their parents. They have
time to demagogue these issues, but to actually fix our broken
immigration system, they claim we don't have any time.
Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record today's Washington Post
editorial, ``John Boehner Must Act on Immigration Now.''
And just so my colleagues understand this, when my friends on the
other side of the aisle say they don't have time, the Republicans will
take 4 out of 5 days off for the rest of the year. That is how hard
they are working on behalf of the American people. Four out of 5 days
remaining from now until the end of the year they are going to take
off. That is not doing your job, Mr. Speaker. That is not doing your
job.
Instead of dealing with these important issues, we have this bill
before us now that has come to the floor, H.R. 1900. The bill before is
rather curious. Rather than solving a problem that actually exists, it
is a solution in search of a problem, and it is just another partisan
messaging bill that is going nowhere in the Senate. The White House has
already said they would veto it.
H.R. 1900 would require FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, to approve or deny an application for a natural gas
pipeline within 12 months of its filing date. FERC already
[[Page H7269]]
decides 92 percent of permit applications within 12 months, and the GAO
has concluded that its pipeline permitting process is predictable and
consistent and gets pipelines built. The small percentage of
applications that have taken more than a year involve complex proposals
that deserve a more thoughtful review.
Instead of speeding up the permitting process, this bill will lead to
unnecessary permit denials and increased litigation that will
ultimately slow the process down. If FERC cannot properly review
permits within the rigid 12-month deadline, they may be forced to deny
applications that would otherwise end up being approved.
For me, the most troubling part of H.R. 1900 is that it may result in
truncated or inadequate environmental analysis, which threatens the
health and safety of communities these potentially hazardous pipelines
run through. Just last week, a Chevron pipeline exploded in Milford,
Texas, forcing the entire town to evacuate. Mr. Speaker, it isn't too
much to ask the oil and gas industry to go through a process to make
sure that these pipelines are safe.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and on the
underlying bill, and I urge my Republican colleagues to get back to
work on solving real problems on behalf of the American people.
Enough of the press releases, enough of this polarizing rhetoric and
these meaningless debates that we seem to be consumed with here in the
House of Representatives. People want us to work on their behalf, to do
things that will improve their lives, that will strengthen our country;
and instead, my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be
cheering for our country to fail all the time and bringing this kind of
stuff to the floor, which is going nowhere and is meaningless.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[The Washington Post, Nov. 19, 2013]
John Boehner Must Act on Immigration Now
(By Editorial Board)
Poor John Boehner. The beleaguered House speaker can't even
eat breakfast in peace. The other day, a pair of teenage
girls, activists for immigration reform, accosted him at
Pete's Diner, his early-morning hangout, to ask how he'd like
to be deported.
``How would you feel if you had to tell your kids at the
age of 10 that you were never coming home?'' 13-year-old
Carmen Lima, of California, asked Mr. Boehner. ``That
wouldn't be good,'' allowed the Speaker.
He got that right. The rest of his remarks on immigration
that day, not so much. Mr. Boehner, who pledged to press
ahead with immigration reform a year ago following Mitt
Romney's dismal performance with Latino voters, now says the
House will not negotiate with Democrats on the basis of the
sweeping reform bill passed by the Senate in June with
bipartisan support. Translation: Don't hold your breath for
immigration reform this year, and don't get your hopes high
for next year, either.
Mr. Boehner says he still wants to ``deal with''
immigration, but ``in a commonsense, step-by-step way.''
The trouble is, no one knows what those steps would be. The
only immigration bill on which Mr. Boehner has permitted a
vote by the full House would allow for the mass deportation
of young, undocumented immigrants brought to this country
illegally as children by their parents--the so-called
Dreamers.
Deporting hundreds of thousands of youngsters who grew up
and went to school in the United States does not seem an
especially promising way to resolve the broader issue of the
nation's broken immigration system. Neither does heaving
billions of dollars more at border security without tackling
the entire problem. Some partial reforms, such as opening the
visa spigot for high-tech engineers, scientists and
mathematicians, may make sense, but they don't get at the
fundamental problem.
As it happens, border security and high-tech visas are
addressed in the Senate bill, along with more fundamental
reform; that's why it's 1,300 pages long, a fact that Mr.
Boehner cited to dismiss its viability as the basis for
negotiations. In the wake of Obamacare's rollout troubles,
large-scale reforms are in poor repute, we understand. But
there are 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United
States. The country needs to deal with them in some way. When
it does so, it needs to set up a sensible system for future
immigration so we don't wind up in the same fix 10 or 20
years from now. That requires legislation of some complexity,
it's true, but members of Congress are elected to solve
complex problems.
President Obama said Tuesday that he is open to dealing
with immigration in a piecemeal fashion. But the House can't
dictate that only border security and deportation are on the
table. Mr. Boehner should let House Republicans vote on the
parts of immigration reform they consider priorities and take
that ``sensible step-by-step'' approach into negotiations
with the Senate. It is unserious, and unconstructive, to tell
the Senate what it can and cannot bring to the table in
negotiations with the House.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my privilege to yield
2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.
I rise today in opposition to the rule and to H.R. 1900.
As many of my colleagues are aware, natural gas is extremely
important to the State of Texas. It seems like every day more and more
natural gas deposits are being found. More importantly, with the
commercialization of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, we
are now able to develop these resources effectively and economically,
but that is only half the story. Once we have found these resources, we
need a way to move them to market in a safe and environmentally
responsible way.
In 1956, the United States decided it was in our best interest to
build a network of highways. These highways, totaling approximately
47,000 miles, moved goods to market and dramatically expanded commerce.
It may surprise some, but the interstate and intrastate pipeline system
is approximately seven times larger than the highway system in the
United States.
The natural gas pipeline system in this country is critical and
extensive infrastructure. The permitting and review process that is
required to site and construct pipelines in this country has ensured an
environmental safety record that is second to none. That doesn't mean
there aren't still going to be problems, when you consider the amount
of miles we have.
Unfortunately, I can't support this particular bill. I support an
expedited review process and expansion of the pipeline system. Our
intrastate natural gas pipeline system is not broken. I cannot support
a bill that would issue a license or permit or approval after merely an
expired time line. In testimony in our committee, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the FERC, has an average of about a year
turnaround.
I want to continue to support the construction of pipelines, and my
ardent support is firmly backed by a safety record that is unmatched. I
will continue to support an industry that has been an engine of our
economic growth for the last decade.
This bill is a solution in search of a problem. I look forward to
working with my colleagues in the future on another approach that will
benefit all stakeholders, our environment, and our economy.
I encourage my colleagues to oppose the rule and the bill.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my privilege to yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished
whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I see four people in the gallery. I see three
Members on the floor. The galleries are empty, the floor is empty
because we are not doing anything, and it is not because we don't have
a lot of things to do.
We have 6--7 if you count tomorrow where we will leave by 12:00--6
full days left in the session in 2013, and yet we fiddle here while the
country sees itself burning on bills that are going nowhere, that have
no priority and deal with a subject, energy, which, happily, is one of
the most successful places we are at in America today, where we are
fast becoming the energy-independent, low-cost energy situs of the
world.
We have no budget conference coming to this floor scheduled in the 6
full days that we have left and the 2 other days that may be counted in
which we come in at 6:30 and meet for probably a half an hour or 45
minutes and vote on suspension bills. Yet we have spent this entire
week--and we left, of course, hardworking day yesterday, we left doing
work at 2:30 in the afternoon. No budget conference, no fiscal policy,
no solution to the crisis that confronted us when we shut down
government.
I urged that we have a budget conference report by November 22--that
is tomorrow--so that we didn't, as our practice has been in recent
months and
[[Page H7270]]
years, confront real issues only when crisis gives us no other
alternative.
No immigration reform has been brought to the floor, although it
passed the Senate with 68 votes, comprehensive immigration reform,
which will address a problem that every Member of this House says is an
immigration system that is broken. The majority leader said that the
other day, and I asked him about the four bills that our Republican
friends, Mr. Speaker, have reported out of committee but they languish
somewhere in the netherworld, not brought to the floor for
consideration by this House.
And yet we have time to consider bills that will have no impact,
which the President says he will veto, and are not bipartisan bills,
were reported out of the committee in a partisan fashion, as so much of
the legislation that we consider on this House floor is, partisan,
confrontational, no-consensus pieces of legislation.
Yet a comprehensive immigration reform bill that had 68 votes, over
two-thirds of the United States Senate, 14 Republicans voted for that
bill, yet the Speaker says he is not for it and won't bring it to the
floor. That is the same Speaker that says let the House work its will.
The House cannot work its will if the legislation is not brought to the
floor by the House, which can only be done by the Republican majority,
Mr. Speaker, as you know. So they keep that bill from being considered,
although CBO says it will help the economy, grow jobs, and fix a broken
system.
{time} 1300
There are 6 full days left to go on the schedule in 2013. And yet the
farm bill, which was reported out of the committee 2 years ago in a
bipartisan fashion in the last Congress but was never brought to this
floor, while we twiddled our thumbs while Rome burned--the farm bill
lies languishing in conference committee because a bipartisan bill,
passed by the United States Senate, was not considered in this House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. But a partisan bill with almost no Democratic votes, and
the second piece of that farm bill, the nutritional part, receiving not
a single Democratic vote, lies languishing in the conference committee
because it was passed in an extraordinarily partisan fashion, where the
gentleman from Oklahoma's (Mr. Lucas) bill, reported out in a
bipartisan fashion. The American public, Mr. Speaker, says, Let's act
bipartisanly. We did. With Democratic and Republican votes, the farm
bill came out of the Agriculture Committee and was turned into a
partisan bill on this floor by my Republican colleagues. So it
languishes with 6 days left, with the farm bill expiring on December
31, no action, no progress.
We need to pay our doctors a proper compensation for the services
they give. I am sure the gentleman from the Rules Committee, who,
himself, is a medical doctor, understands this necessity. We need to
fix the sustainable growth, but it languishes somewhere out in the
netherworld while we have 6 days left. Unfixed, unscheduled. I have
asked the majority leader numerous times: Is that going to be brought
to the floor? It has not been brought to the floor.
Discrimination in the workplace, passed by the Senate in a bipartisan
fashion, ENDA, is not going to be brought to this floor. The Speaker
says he is opposed to it, so the House will not be able to work its
will again on a piece of legislation that, in my opinion, would have a
majority of the votes on this floor. There is no doubt in my mind, and
I am the whip. I count votes, Mr. Speaker, as you know. It would have
the majority of votes on this floor, but the Speaker and the majority
leader will not bring it to this floor.
Unemployment insurance for 1.2 million people ends on December 31,
and we have 6 days of full work left and two partial days when we come
in at 6:30. Yet unemployment insurance has not been brought to this
floor to be extended for those 1.1 million people, with still 7.2 or
7.3 percent unemployment. Unemployment insurance is a critically
important issue. It is somewhere out there, but it is not on this
floor. This, while we have considered legislation this entire week that
the majority knows will not pass the United States Senate and, even if
it did pass, would not be signed by the President of the United States.
But they send a message, perhaps, to their base: politics. With the
budget conference, immigration reform, the farm bill, the sustainable
growth rate, doc reimbursement for Medicare patients, discrimination in
the workplace, unemployment insurance, and, yes, I would add to that
tax extenders--none of it on this floor.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. No one ought to ask themselves why the American people
hold this institution in such low regard. None of us who have served in
this institution for any period of time are proud of what we are doing
in this Congress. We lament the unwillingness of the leadership of this
House to have us do the work that the American public knows we must be
doing.
So, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the previous question.
This is not just an ordinary previous question. What this previous
question says is, We will not adjourn, American people. We will not
adjourn on December 13, as is projected by the majority to be the date
on which we adjourn. We will not adjourn until such time as we have
done the important work that the American people expect of us, the
responsible work that the American people expect of us, the work that
we ought to expect of ourselves until we consider this bill.
I would hope that we would defeat the previous question, and if we
defeat the previous question, then we will bring to this floor a
resolution which will say, We shall not adjourn until we have done a
budget conference that precludes fiscal crisis, shutting down
government, a refusal to pay America's debts; that we pass an
immigration reform bill that fixes what everybody knows is a broken
system; until we bring a farm bill to the floor which will preclude
farmers and consumers and those who need nutritional help from being
put at risk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a letter. This is not a
letter from Democrats. This is a letter from 13 Republican leaders,
chairs of the subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee, who say to
the budget conference committee: Bring a solution to the floor before
the Thanksgiving break and no later than December 2. Yet, ladies and
gentlemen of this House, Mr. Speaker--and yes, Mr. Speaker, all of us
speak to the American people, who ought to be asking us, Why? Why? Why
do we waste time when so much important work remains to be done?
Defeat the previous question. Allow us to offer a resolution which
will say to the American people, We will continue to work until we get
your work done.
Congress of the United States,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC, November 18, 2013.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Chairman, Budget Committee,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Chris Van Hollen,
Ranking Member, Budget Committee,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Patty Murray,
Chairwoman, Budget Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Jeff Sessions,
Ranking Member, Budget Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Ryan, Chairwoman Murray, Ranking Member
Sessions, and Ranking Member Van Hollen: We call on the
Budget conference to reach an agreement on the FY 2014 and
2015 spending caps as soon as possible to allow the
appropriations process to move forward to completion by the
January 15 expiration of the current short-term Continuing
Resolution. We urge you to redouble your efforts toward that
end and report common, topline levels for both the House and
Senate before the Thanksgiving recess, or by December 2 at
the latest.
If a timely agreement is not reached, the likely
alternatives could have extremely damaging repercussions.
First, the failure to reach a budget deal to allow
Appropriations to assemble funding for FY 2014 will reopen
the specter of another government shutdown. Second, it will
reopen the probability
[[Page H7271]]
of governance by continuing resolution, based on prior year
outdated spending needs and priorities, dismissing in one
fell swoop all of the work done by the Congress to enact
appropriations bills for FY 2014 that reflect the will of
Congress and the people we represent. Third, the current
sequester and the upcoming ``Second Sequester'' in January
would result in more indiscriminate across the board
reductions that could have negative consequences on
critically important federal programs, especially our
national defense.
In addition, failure to agree on a common spending cap for
FY 2015 will guarantee another year of confusion.
The American people deserve a detailed budget blueprint
that makes rational and intelligent choices on funding by
their elected representatives, not by a meat ax. We urge you
to come together and decide on a common discretionary
spending topline for both FY 2014 and FY 2015 as quickly as
possible to empower our Committee, and the Congress as a
whole, to make the responsible spending decisions that we
have been elected to make.
Sincerely,
Harold Rogers, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations;
Jack Kingston, Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Health
and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies;
Tom Latham, Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation,
and Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies; Kay Granger, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies; John
Abney Culberson, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies;
John R. Carter, Chairman, Subcommittee on Homeland
Security; Tom Cole, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Legislative Branch; Frank R. Wolf, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice Science, and Related
Agencies; Rodney Frelinghuysen, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Defense; Robert B. Aderholt, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies; Michael K.
Simpson, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development, and Related Agencies; Ander Crenshaw,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Financial Services and
General Government; Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.
Mr. BURGESS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks of our
distinguished whip. It is frustrating to serve in the people's House
and watch as this leadership purposely tries to avoid doing the
people's business. It is frustrating when you go home and you talk to
farmers, and they want to know where the farm bill is. It is
frustrating when you talk to people about immigration, and they look at
what happened in the United States Senate, where it passed
overwhelmingly with bipartisan support, and we can't even get anything
scheduled here. We can't even get anything scheduled here.
It is frustrating when people are still reeling over the fact that
the Republicans shut the government down, and they want to make sure we
don't repeat it. Yet we have no budget resolution, no budget conference
that has been put together to make sure that we are on a road where we
don't have any more of these Ted Cruz-led shutdowns around here. So it
is very frustrating.
I think the gentleman from Maryland said it very clearly--that the
American people are frustrated. It is not just Democrats. It is
Democrats and Republicans that are frustrated.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. BURGESS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas for a parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. BURGESS. Is it in order to refer to Members of the other body by
name?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not provide an advisory
opinion.
Mr. McGOVERN. So we don't want another Ted Cruz-led shutdown here in
the House of Representatives. I think the American people are fed up
with that.
Then, as the distinguished minority whip pointed out, I mean, we are
not even in session more than 6 full days from now until the end of the
year, which is absolutely unconscionable.
You say to yourself, Well, maybe the Republicans are planning to do
something in the future; maybe they have an agenda for the future. Then
we read in Politico that last Thursday, a group of House Republicans
filed into Majority Leader Eric Cantor's Capitol office suite and
received a blank piece of paper labeled, ``Agenda 2014.'' This is their
agenda for 2014. A Republican political aide put it more bluntly by
saying, ``What we have done so far this year clearly hasn't worked.''
This is their agenda for next year. It might as well be the agenda
for the rest of this year. It is nothing, nothing that is improving the
quality of life for the people that we represent. Again, it fuels a
cynicism all across the country that the majority party here doesn't
seem to care about what happens to regular people, and that is very,
very disconcerting.
I guess they could go back and say that their big accomplishment was
that they complained about the Affordable Care Act. Over 40-something
times, they brought bills to the floor to try to repeal it, never once
offering an alternative to improve it, never once giving an alternative
idea that would help address the fact that tens of millions of our
citizens don't have health insurance. Millions do have health
insurance, but it is really not health insurance because when they get
sick, they realize they have been paying for a policy that provides
them nothing. There is no alternative agenda to try to address those
issues; it is just that they are against it. I guess it is easy to say
``no,'' but the bottom line is, I think the American people are looking
for us to say ``yes'' to some things.
So, Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up House Resolution 424, Ranking Member
Slaughter's resolution prohibiting an adjournment of the House until we
adopt a budget conference report.
What that means is that we should not adjourn until we do our job.
That shouldn't be a radical idea. I would like to think there is
bipartisan consensus that we ought to do our job, and that is what this
would require.
So, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment into 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 Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and
defeat the previous question.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and on the underlying bills which,
to be honest with you, are a waste of our time. They are going nowhere
in the Senate, and the President has already issued a veto threat on
them.
With one last urging of my Republican colleagues to stay here and do
your work, Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
You know, Mr. Speaker, it was a little over a year ago that the
American people went to the polls, and in their wisdom, they elected a
divided government. They knew what divided government looked like. They
had seen it for the 2 years prior.
The President came to town in 2009 and promised a lot of sweeping
changes, and he delivered on those sweeping changes during the first 2
years of his administration. He had a health care bill passed. The
health care bill passed without a single Republican vote. You talk
about a partisan vote--the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
was a partisan vote. Unfortunately, we are seeing now, as we have
convulsed the country with these changes that are occurring within the
insurance system, we are seeing the changes that are going to occur to
our providers, our doctors, our hospitals, our nurses in the months
ahead. This is a serious situation, and it requires serious action to
be taken.
I won't apologize for any action that has been taken by the majority
in this House to try to rein in the excesses of the administration and
the previous Democrat-controlled Congress when they took over one-sixth
of the Nation's economy in a partisan fashion without a single
Republican vote.
The sequester was passed in August of 2011. It was passed at the
request of the President. The gentleman has talked about shutdowns and
defaults of the government. Do you remember that the sequester was a
compromise
[[Page H7272]]
proposed by the President and the Office of Management and Budget at
the White House in order to prevent defaulting on our debt? It was a
very difficult vote for many of us in this House.
What has the sequester delivered? The sequester delivered what no one
had been able to deliver in the 4 years previously, and that is a
Federal budget deficit that is below $1 trillion. It doesn't sound like
a big ask that the American people had: We want you to stop spending so
much money. The sequester delivered on that promise.
I find it strange now for the gentleman from Massachusetts to impugn
the integrity of people who voted in favor of that sequester when the
President and the minority leader of the House of Representatives now
want to take credit for the fact that the deficit was cut in half over
the last 4 years.
{time} 1315
The only reason it was cut in half was because they raised it to
unsustainable levels, and now the sequester has reined that back in. It
is quite likely that the deficit at the end of fiscal year 2014 will in
fact be lower if we don't do something to damage the trajectory that we
are on.
I don't think the immigration bill passed by the Senate is here at
the House. I think it has got an origination problem, and it is
unconstitutional. If there is a bill at the desk, I will be happy to
look at it, but I don't think that has occurred. The gentleman knows
that.
This bill that we are considering today would lower the price of
natural gas delivered to consumers in the State of Massachusetts. I
have a table prepared by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The
national average for natural gas is $9.19 per thousand cubic feet. In
Massachusetts, it is $13.18.
So this is a bill today that could deliver product to the gentleman's
constituents in Massachusetts at a much more reasonable price. This
sounds to me like a bill that will help the economy. This sounds to me
like a bill that may provide jobs for the American people.
The minority whip talked about the doc fix. Our committee, the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, did pass, in a bipartisan fashion,
the repeal of the sustainable growth rate formula. I think it is a good
bill. I think it is a bill where we had participation from both sides
of the dais and not a single dissenting vote when we voted on the bill
in committee right before the August recess.
There is another body here in the Capitol Building. They are
considering their own version of a similar bill in the appropriate
Finance Committee over in the other body. I don't want to prejudge or
preclude what they will or won't do. I am anxious for them to do
something that would give us a negotiating point where we could
consider moving forward with a final repeal of this problem, but in
fact, the legislative branch consists of two bodies--this body and the
body on the other side. Until the Finance Committee acts, there is
little more that the Energy and Commerce Committee can do to push that
bill forward.
Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of a critical
bill to ensure our energy infrastructure needs are being met. Mr.
Pompeo has done a good job. I applaud him and our committee for the
thoughtful legislation.
I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying
bill.
[From the Energy & Commerce Committee, U.S. House of Representatives,
Nov. 19, 2013]
H.R. 1900 Needed To Deliver Affordable American Energy to Consumers
House to Vote This Week on Legislation to Speed Up Natural Gas Pipeline
Projects
This week the House of Representatives will consider H.R.
1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act.
Authored by Energy and Commerce Committee member Rep. Mike
Pompeo (R-KS), the bill will help ensure consumers have
access to affordable and reliable energy by modernizing the
permitting process for interstate natural gas pipelines. It
is a critical part of the committee's efforts to build the
architecture of abundance, and will allow American families
and businesses across the country to enjoy the benefits of
the U.S. shale gas boom.
America is experiencing a surge in natural gas production
but right now we simply don't have the infrastructure to
accommodate this increased supply and deliver this low-cost
energy to consumers and manufacturers. And as gas gains a
greater market share of the nation's electricity portfolio,
many regions of the country do not have the pipeline capacity
to support this conversion, leaving consumers vulnerable to
price spikes. We saw this play out last January as areas of
the country, particularly along the East Coast, faced gas
shortages and high prices. According to a recent blog post by
the Energy Information Administration, ``The increased use of
natural gas for electricity generation has raised concerns
about fuel diversity, as the Northeast is also reliant on
natural gas for part of its heating needs and has limited
pipeline capacity to bring gas to market. The winter of 2012-
13 saw spikes in wholesale electricity prices in New England
and New York as demand for natural gas from both electric
generators and natural gas distribution companies taxed the
capacity to bring natural gas into these markets.''
The chart below highlights those states that suffered the
most last winter from high natural gas prices and the lack of
adequate infrastructure, with natural gas prices reaching up
to 68% higher than the national average:
Residential Natural Gas Prices for January 2013: National Average:
$9.19*
Alabama......................................................$14.44/57%
Arizona......................................................$11.07/20%
Connecticut..................................................$13.07/42%
Delaware.....................................................$12.32/34%
Florida......................................................$15.43/68%
Georgia......................................................$12.92/41%
Maine........................................................$15.33/67%
Maryland.....................................................$10.73/17%
Massachusetts................................................$13.18/43%
New Hampshire................................................$11.99/30%
New Jersey...................................................$10.81/18%
New York.....................................................$11.42/24%
North Carolina...............................................$11.07/20%
Pennsylvania.................................................$10.48/14%
Rhode Island.................................................$12.58/37%
South Carolina...............................................$11.88/29%
Vermont......................................................$14.73/60%
Virginia.....................................................$11.10/21%
Washington...................................................$10.47/14%
* Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet
Source: U.S. EIA
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about the rule
governing debate on this bill, H.R. 1900, the ``Natural Gas Pipeline
Permitting Act.''
Mr. Speaker, as I stated yesterday when we debated the other energy
bills, I am not anti-energy exploration. I am not pro--or anti-
fracking. I am, however strongly ``pro-jobs,'' ``pro-economic growth,''
and ``pro-sustainable environment.''
As a Member of Congress from Houston I have always been mindful of
the importance of, and have strongly advocated for, national energy
policies that will make our nation energy independent, preserve and
create jobs, and keep our nation's economy strong.
That is why I carefully consider each energy legislative proposal
brought to the floor on its individual merits and support them when
they are sound, balanced, fair, and promote the national interest.
Where they fall short, I believe in working across the aisle to
improve them if possible by offering constructive amendments.
Although I believe the nation would benefit by increased pipeline
capacity to transport our abundant supplies of natural gas, the
legislation before contains several provisions that are of great
concern to me.
Pursuant to Section 2, paragraph (4) of the bill, a permit or license
for a natural gas pipeline project is ``deemed'' approved if the
Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC) or other federal agencies
do not issue the permit or license within 90-120 days.
I have three concerns with this regulatory scheme.
First, as a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I have a
problem with ``deeming'' something done that has not been done in fact.
Thus, the provision is unwise.
Second, this provision is a remedy in search of a problem. There is
no lengthy or intolerable backlog of neglected natural gas pipeline
projects awaiting action by FERC.
The provision is unnecessary because FERC has, since fiscal year
2009, completed action on 92 percent (504 out of 548) of all pipeline
applications that it has received within one year of receipt. And the
remaining 8% of decisions that have taken longer than one year involve
complex proposals that merit additional review and consideration.
Third, the provision is irresponsible because would require FERC to
and other agencies to make decisions based on incomplete information or
information that may not be available within the stringent deadlines,
and to deny applications that otherwise would have been approved, but
for lack of sufficient review time.
Compounding the problem is that the fact that FERC like virtually
every federal agency is operating under the onerous and draconian
provisions of the disastrous sequestration which has caused so much
misery and disruption across the nation and to our economy.
FERC, for example, with a budget of $306 million faces a $15 million
reduction in spending authority this fiscal year, according to OMB.
That sum amounts to 5% of FERC's budget.
[[Page H7273]]
So the likely impact of this bill if passed is to put FERC in the
position of having to work faster to issue decisions with fewer
experienced employees and a reduction in resources.
Given the inherent dangers involved in the construction and operation
of a natural gas pipeline, does anyone doubt that this state of affairs
is likely to lead to FERC to err on the side of caution and deny
applications that may otherwise been approved if it had more time and
more resources to carry out its responsibilities?
Mr. Speaker, we should not take that chance. That is why I offered an
amendment, which the Rules Committee made in order, to suspend the
effectiveness of this legislation so long as sequestration is in
effect. I urge all Members to support the Jackson Lee Amendment when it
comes to the floor later this week.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 420 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration of the resolution
(H. Res. 424) prohibiting the consideration of a concurrent
resolution providing for adjournment unless the House has
adopted a conference report on the budget resolution by
December 13, 2013, if called up by Representative Slaughter
of New York or her designee. All points of order against the
resolution and against its consideration are waived.
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. 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 on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223,
nays 195, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 592]
YEAS--223
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
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
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
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)
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)
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
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--195
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
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
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
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
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
[[Page H7274]]
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
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--12
Bachmann
Braley (IA)
Campbell
Ellmers
Gabbard
Herrera Beutler
Johnson, Sam
McCarthy (NY)
Meng
Radel
Rush
Westmoreland
{time} 1345
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, Mses. WILSON of Florida and SLAUGHTER
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. YOUNG of Alaska and CARTER changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 592, had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''
Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, on November 20, 2013, I was unavoidably
detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall No. 592. Had I
been present I would have voted ``nay'' on ordering the previous
question.
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. McGOVERN. 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 225,
noes 194, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 593]
AYES--225
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
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
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
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
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (CA)
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
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)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--194
Andrews
Bachmann
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
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
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
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
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
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
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--11
Campbell
Diaz-Balart
Ellmers
Gohmert
Herrera Beutler
McCarthy (NY)
Meng
Pittenger
Radel
Rush
Wenstrup
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1352
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. PITTENGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 593, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
personal explanation
Mrs. ELLMERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 592 and 593, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
personal explanation
Mrs. MENG. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 592 and 593, had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________