[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 99 (Tuesday, June 24, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H5652-H5659]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6, DOMESTIC PROSPERITY AND GLOBAL
FREEDOM ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3301, NORTH
AMERICAN ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE ACT
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 636 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 636
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. 6) to provide for expedited approval of
exportation of natural gas to World Trade Organization
countries, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and amendments specified in this section
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 113-48. That amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are
waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A
of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the 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. 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.
3301) to require approval for the construction, connection,
operation, or maintenance of oil or natural gas pipelines or
electric transmission facilities at the national boundary of
the United States for the import or export of oil, natural
gas, or electricity to or from Canada or Mexico, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. 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 113-49. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against that amendment in the
nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order
except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee
on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment
may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may
be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall
be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment,
and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All
points of order against such amendments are waived. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois). 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.
{time} 1230
General Leave
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may 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 636 provides for
consideration of two energy bills designed to
[[Page H5653]]
provide certainty for those American businesses that have been given
excuse after excuse as to why their permit applications have been
delayed by the President, the Department of Energy, and other Federal
agencies.
The President and his administration have used every delaying tactic
they can think of to put off approval of job-creating projects in the
natural gas and oil sectors. Quite frankly, the American people are fed
up with it. Republicans are here today to stand up for citizens,
unions, and businesses that have stood up and called for a more
expeditious process that removes politics from the permitting
decisionmaking.
The rule before us today provides for consideration of two bills,
H.R. 6, the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, and H.R. 3301,
the North American Energy Infrastructure Act. Both bills receive a
standard structured rule under this rule.
For H.R. 6, the Rules Committee makes in order four amendments--two
from Democratic sponsors and two bipartisan amendments. For H.R. 3301,
the rule makes in order three amendments, all sponsored by Democrats.
This is a straightforward and fair rule that will allow the House to
fully debate the issues of liquefied natural gas exports and cross-
border pipeline and transmission line projects.
House Republicans have been focused on this country's energy
independence for years. The Energy and Commerce Committee has been out
in front of this effort, holding hearings on the Obama administration's
harmful policies, holding hearings on the job-killing regulations and
those that place restrictions on development on public lands and
thereby increase the cost of producing electricity and fuel.
Although President Obama is quick to take credit for an increase in
natural gas and oil production in this country over the last few years,
any honest observer knows that any increase in production has come as a
result of efforts on private, not public land, and certainly not lands
controlled by the Federal Government.
In continuing the Republican majority's focus on domestic production
issues, utilizing the resources that we have here in North America,
Representative Cory Gardner introduced H.R. 6, the bipartisan Domestic
Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, to provide for the expedited
approval of exploration of natural gas to World Trade Organization
countries. I am an original cosponsor of the legislation.
In the Energy and Commerce Committee, we have had hearings about the
gridlock which has held up dozens of applications from domestic
production companies looking to export liquefied natural gas. Since the
first non-free trade agreement application was submitted to the
Department of Energy nearly 4 years ago, seven have been approved.
Twenty-four are awaiting action.
Interestingly enough, to counter what the Department of Energy knew
would be the inevitable bipartisan criticism of its delays at the last
hearing we held on this topic, the Department of Energy announced just
days before the hearing the approval of another LNG export application.
For anyone who thinks that this activity in the House is futile,
given Harry Reid's intransigence in taking up any legislation that
comes to the Senate from the House, this action by the Department of
Energy highlights that efforts taken in this body--the House--can have
meaningful impacts beyond simply having legislation signed into law.
Sending a clear signal to the Obama administration that the people's
House is fed up with its delaying tactics and refusal to move forward
with the approval of legitimate permit applications is key to making
progress toward a more robust domestic energy sector.
The delays which President Obama's administration has imposed on
these applications make it more and more difficult. As applications sit
collecting dust for these companies trying to secure financing and
countries looking to do business with American suppliers, they will
soon lose patience and look elsewhere for their needs. The window for
these opportunities is closing, and it is the President's hand that is
pushing it down.
Mr. Gardner's legislation is straightforward. Indeed, it is a two-
page bill with a clear purpose and intent. The legislation expedites
the decisionmaking process for authorization to export natural gas by
requiring the Department of Energy to issue a decision within a finite
number of days.
This legislation does not force the Department of Energy to make a
decision or to make a decision a certain way. It simply says: make a
decision.
Moreover, an increase in liquefied natural gas exports in the United
States can have major positive ramifications on international
relations.
I recently traveled to the Ukraine for their elections. I saw
firsthand how Russia's cruel restrictions on natural gas are affecting
the region's social and political atmosphere. Officials from the
Ukraine and other Eastern European countries have told members of the
Energy and Commerce Committee that the mere mention that the United
States is increasing its LNG exports can have dramatic impacts on
Russia's influence over the region. Mr. Gardner's bill achieves that
goal.
The passage of this bill will move the United States yet another step
closer to both assisting our allies abroad as well as creating a more
robust domestic industry at home.
The second bill included in today's rule, H.R. 3301, the North
American Energy Infrastructure Act, authored by Chairman Upton of the
Energy and Commerce Committee, further improves the laws governing the
permitting of oil and gas pipelines which cross the United States
border between either Mexico or Canada.
As the country has witnessed over the past few years, despite
overwhelming support from the American people for the project,
President Obama and his Secretary of State--first Hillary Clinton and
now John Kerry--have refused to approve the Keystone pipeline to bring
oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.
Those of us who have followed the process over the many years that
this administration has had the Keystone application under its review
know that the delays which the President has imposed on this approval
process have been done purely for political considerations and, in the
process, have harmed the country's relationship with one of our closest
allies, our neighbor to the north.
If the goal of the President's delays--which he is clearly doing for
his friends in the environmental lobby and certainly not for the many
unions who have loudly called for the project's approval--was to stop
development of the oil sands in Canada, the President again has failed.
Canada recently approved the exploration of a new pipeline to its
western coast, where oil would be transported and exported to Asia.
Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee have been highlighting
this possibility for years. Apparently, our predictions are about to
come true.
H.R. 3301 is about more than simply the Keystone pipeline. This
legislation is about preventing the President--and future Presidents,
regardless of their party--from playing politics with decisions that
should be made on the merits of the project.
This President has repeatedly ignored the State Department's
comprehensive environmental review of the application, which found that
minimal adverse impacts would occur from the building and operation of
a cross-country pipeline, and has instead decided to base the decision
purely on those special interests.
This is not how major national projects should be evaluated in this
country, and Chairman Upton's legislation ensures that future decisions
will be done without the shadow of politics looming over them.
However, although the legislation removes the politics out of such
decisionmaking, it still ensures that other key safeguards in the
approval process remain in place. Cross-border pipelines would still
have to meet the Natural Gas Act's requirements, and they would still
comply with all relevant Federal, State, and local siting and
environmental law.
The Department of Commerce and the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission both will play roles in this process, as well as the
Department of Energy. Decisions must be made within a 120-day timeframe
to prevent the types of delaying tactics that we have seen from the
administration with regard to energy projects.
[[Page H5654]]
To be clear, this legislation applies only to projects which cross
national borders and does not make changes to the application process
for interstate and intrastate energy projects.
Mr. Speaker, both bills before us today are commonsense responses to
the problems we have experienced when the President decides to play
politics with the Nation's domestic energy industry.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on
the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1245
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess,
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the
underlying bills. First of all, this rule is not open, and it denies
some important and germane amendments. This is consistent with the
increasingly closed mindset of this Republican leadership.
I want to remind my colleagues that this is now the most closed
Congress in history. There have been 62 closed rules in this Congress
alone. That is a title I don't think either party would enjoy having,
but this is the most closed Congress in history. Speaker Boehner, in
his opening speech, said that openness would be the new standard. I
guess he misspoke because that is not what is happening on these bills,
and it hasn't been happening on most other important pieces of
legislation. The approval rating of Congress from a poll, I think,
Gallup did last week is at 7 percent. My friends can't blame that on
President Obama, and they can't blame that on someone else. They are
running the show here in the House. This is a reflection on the work or
on the lack of work that is being done here.
I think the American people want a full and open debate on important
issues. I think the American people want us to focus on things that
will actually make their lives better and that have a chance of
actually becoming law. We have millions of our fellow citizens who are
unemployed, and we can't even get the Republican leadership to bring an
extension of unemployment insurance to the House floor for a vote. We
can't even get it on the floor for a vote.
We are trying to raise the minimum wage so that we are not
subsidizing McDonald's or Wendy's, which pay their workers minimum
wage. We are trying to give people a raise so that work actually pays
in this country. We can't even get a minimum wage bill to this House
floor for a vote. We can't even debate it, and we can't have a vote on
it. They are blocking it.
We need to fix our immigration system. It is broken. An immigration
reform bill passed in the United States Senate in a bipartisan way, and
it solves many of the problems that some of my friends on the other
side are complaining about, but the leadership of this House won't even
let us bring a bipartisan immigration reform bill to the House floor so
that we can vote on it.
It is no wonder why, under this Republican leadership, the approval
rating of this body is 7 percent. I think that is history in and of
itself. I don't know whether there was ever a Congress in the history
of this country that had such a low rating.
Now here we are with this legislation, H.R. 6, the amazingly named
Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, which would improve neither
our domestic prosperity nor global freedom. Instead, it would undermine
the Department of Energy's approval process for the export of liquefied
natural gas. The current process allows the DOE to evaluate the impacts
of LNG exports on domestic natural gas prices for consumers and
manufacturers as well as environmental impacts.
This bill is a solution in search of a problem, Mr. Speaker. The
Department of Energy is already aggressively approving LNG exports. The
amounts already approved for exports would transform the United States
into the world's second largest exporter of LNG. Further, under the
bill, LNG would not be exported any faster. I urge my colleagues not to
be fooled by the rhetoric that you may hear on the floor today. Passing
this bill will not magically solve the natural gas problem in Ukraine
or in other parts of the world.
The other bill, H.R. 3301, the North American Energy Infrastructure
Act, would dramatically weaken the environmental review process for
transborder pipeline and electrical transmission line projects. This
bill, which is a blatantly transparent effort to ``rig the game'' in
favor of the Keystone pipeline project, would preclude the Federal
Government from reviewing a project's full impacts, including oil
spills and the consequences for landowners, public safety, drinking
water, wildlife, and, yes, Mr. Speaker, climate change. Let me say
those two words again because I know that many of our Republican
colleagues tend to stick their heads in the sand when they hear them--
climate change.
I think it is important to say a few things. Here is what we know. We
know that burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere. We know that carbon dioxide traps heat. We know that the
levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are higher than they have
been in 800,000 years. We know that 9 of the 10 warmest years since
1880 have been in the last decade. We know that last month was the
warmest month of May ever recorded.
Yet, to hear some of my Republican friends, we should just move
along--nothing to see here, nothing to worry about. There is no need to
worry that the Arctic ice sheets are melting, leading to rapidly rising
sea levels. There is no need to worry about more severe and deadly
weather events. There is no need to worry about profound impacts to
agricultural production. At best, you will hear them say that the
science is still unsettled. It isn't. Climate change is real--it is
happening--and we need to figure out what we should do about it.
Sometimes they will say: Well, I am not a scientist, so I can't
really comment about it. Mr. Speaker, I am not a scientist either, but
I know that, if I drop my pen, it will fall to the floor because of
gravity. No, most of us here in Congress are not scientists, but the
overwhelming majority of the best and brightest scientific minds in the
world have concluded that climate change is real, that it is happening,
and humankind is currently making the problem worse.
It would be nice, given the enormity of this problem, if my
Republican friends would work with Democrats and would work with the
White House to try to fashion a response. Instead, they deny that it is
a problem, and we get more of the same old-same old. I regret that
very, very much, but I can't quite understand, Mr. Speaker, why my
Republican friends continue to ignore this critically important issue.
I hope it isn't because of their borderline pathological hatred of
President Obama. I hope that it isn't because of the Big Oil special
interests and the millions and millions of dollars they pour into
Republican campaigns. Whatever the reason, I hope that future
generations will forgive them, because this is something that we should
have been addressing years and years and years ago, and the continued
blocking of any serious attempts to deal with climate change by the
majority in this House, I think, is unconscionable.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, vote against the rule because it is
not an open rule, and a lot of germane amendments--they were germane--
were not made in order. I am glad one of the authors of the bill got
his amendment made in order, but he authored the bill, so I guess he
gets special preference. There is no reason why all of the amendments
couldn't have been made in order, and there is no reason why this
couldn't have been an open process, because we are not really doing
much this week. As for this legislation we are dealing with here today,
my guess is it ain't going anywhere.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute for the purpose of
a response.
Two months ago, in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion, this House
agreed to loan guarantees for the country of Ukraine as they dealt with
an internal crisis in their country. It is interesting that, probably
less than 24 hours after this House passed that loan guarantee,
Vladimir Putin said: Do you
[[Page H5655]]
know what? Your natural gas price just doubled. In fact, next year, it
is going to cost you an extra $1 billion. So, in effect, he used
natural gas pricing policy to offset the loan guarantees that we had
provided to the country of Ukraine to deal with their internal
problems.
Mr. Speaker, this is something that this Congress can adjust and
affect right now. We can remove the stranglehold that Vladimir Putin
holds over Ukraine and, indeed, over the entirety of Eastern Europe,
and we can do it with the passage of this bill today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank my colleague on the Rules Committee
for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the rule for both H.R. 6 and H.R. 3301,
and I will address both of these bills. I am an original cosponsor of
H.R. 3301 and a recent cosponsor to H.R. 6 after we amended it out of
our committee.
As for H.R. 3301, this legislation would create a North American
energy market with our free trading partners Canada and Mexico.
If we want to create this market, we need to have statutory
authority. It is true that the Presidential permitting process dates
back through many administrations, but to really create this market, we
need some certainty, and that is why it should be in statute. These
past administrations were forced to use executive orders, but Congress
has failed to act. Congress has the duty to regulate the commerce of
the United States, and cross-border energy infrastructure projects fall
well within that space. Unfortunately, cross-border decisions have now
fallen victim to election cycles and political considerations. H.R.
3301 will resolve these issues and those proposed by the amendments
debated here today.
Let me say that I wish we had an open rule. Some of the amendments
considered by the Rules Committee I would have liked to have voted for,
but let's not take that away from the quality of these two pieces of
legislation.
H.R. 3301 provides for an environmental review of the cross-border
segment of the pipeline. The entire length of the pipeline is reviewed
for environmental impacts under existing law. Any time a pipeline
crosses Federal lands, waters, endangered habitats, a National
Environmental Policy Act review--also known as ``NEPA''--must be
completed by the Federal Government. Otherwise, the environmental
permit must come from the State environmental agency if it is within
the State. There are more than 40,000 miles of pipeline in the U.S.
that have been constructed with in-depth environmental reviews. This
will continue to be the case. H.R. 3301 doesn't take anything away
except the State Department only has to deal with their responsibility
in its coming from Canada to the United States or from Mexico to the
United States or vice versa. There will be environmental reviews by
Federal agencies and State agencies, and this will continue to be the
case.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Also, this bill doesn't deal with the
Keystone XL. Pending applications for permits are grandfathered into
the current process, and as a fail-safe, we have pushed the effective
date of the legislation back to July 1 of 2016. This legislation isn't
about Keystone no matter how badly opponents want to make it. It is
about future projects and how to meet the energy needs of the 21st
century.
Let me talk about H.R. 6. H.R. 6 would actually quantify how this
should be done on exporting LNG, and most of those permits are in
Louisiana and Texas. Most of the responsibility is with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, and they take 12 to 18 months to do
the environmental reviews. The Department of Energy's only
responsibility is if it is in the national interest to export LNG. We
are going to keep that in the law, but we want to make sure they give a
30-day response because they have actually already had a possible 18
months to review these applications.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I have very little to add to what my
colleague from Texas just said.
I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want my colleagues to understand why I think we should reject this
rule. Let me just mention two amendments that were germane and that
were brought to the Rules Committee by our colleague from California
(Mr. Garamendi).
One amendment clarifies that a viable merchant marine is in the
public interest and should be taken into consideration when processing
applications under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act. The other grants
priority to the processing of approvals for LNG facilities that will be
supplied with or will export LNG by U.S. flag vessels.
These are, basically, two amendments that are germane to this bill
that would strengthen our shipping industry, and they were ruled out of
order. For no reason, they were just randomly ruled out of order. Those
are the kinds of things that Members of Congress do not have an
opportunity to vote on when you close the process. Again, this is the
most closed Congress in the history of our country--with more closed
rules than any other Congress in history. So the tendency of this
leadership, notwithstanding what the Speaker promised, which was to
have a more open and transparent process, has been to become the most
closed Congress in history.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question,
and if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to
the rule to bring up legislation that mirrors the bipartisan measure
that overwhelmingly passed the Senate this month. It takes aim at some
of the VA's most pressing problems, including the expansion of
veterans' access to care, holding VA officials accountable, and
increasing medical personnel and needed facilities.
This issue of the VA is something that we need to address. It is
important, and it is something on which, I think, there is bipartisan
agreement that we ought to focus on, and our use on this floor would be
better spent dealing with that.
To discuss this proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the Congresswoman from
Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick).
{time} 1300
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4841, the
bill I introduced to overhaul the VA. The Senate has passed this
legislation, and now, we must act swiftly and pass the Veterans' Access
to Care Through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act of 2014
without delay.
Over the past several weeks, the House Veterans' Affairs Committee
has held hearing after hearing on the multitude of issues that plague
the VA. These hearings have covered everything from the gaming
strategies to hide long patient wait times and bonuses received by VA
executives, to capacity problems in the VA health system, and outdated
appointment scheduling software.
These hearings clearly demonstrate that the VA needs an overhaul, and
H.R. 4841 seeks to accomplish this. Our veterans have sacrificed so
much for us. We have a moral obligation to ensure that sweeping reforms
are implemented across the VA, making it an organization that exists
with one purpose: to serve our veterans.
As lawmakers, we cannot address these multiple issues through
piecemeal legislation. We must pass legislation that addresses the
patient access crisis, manages patient care, and holds employees
accountable.
H.R. 4841 addresses patient access by expediting the hiring of more
VA health care providers and authorizes leases for 26 more health care
facilities. It allows our rural veterans who have waited too long for
appointments to see a doctor in their community.
It improves access to mobile vet centers for our rural veterans and
expands access to survivors of military sexual assault. It strengthens
partnerships between the VA and the Indian Health Services, an
arrangement that is successfully working on the Navajo Nation in my
district.
This bill addresses the VA's outdated appointment scheduling system
and outdated IT infrastructure through a technology task force. It
prohibits the
[[Page H5656]]
falsification of data to report patient wait times and mandates
transparency by requiring the VA to publish patient wait times and data
that measures the quality of care at all VA medical facilities.
It holds employees accountable by giving the Secretary the authority
to immediately fire senior executives who fail to serve veterans.
This bill even helps our student veterans receive instate tuition at
public colleges and universities and extends GI benefits to surviving
spouses.
This bill is truly an overhaul of the way our veterans access care,
of the way the VA manages care, and of the VA culture.
I will fight for the provisions in H.R. 4841 in the conference
committee that convenes later today. However, a conference committee is
not needed if the House passes this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Black). The time of the gentlewoman has
expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. The Senate overwhelmingly agreed that these reforms
are necessary, and now, the House must act without delay to make these
sweeping reforms law.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
The fact of the matter is that a conference committee is meeting on
this very issue. In fact, they are having their first meeting this
afternoon.
The issues of access, the issues of accountability for VA personnel
who have not held themselves to high standards, those are provisions
that have already passed the floor of this House, some on suspension
and some under a rule.
These bills are before the conference committee with the Senate. It
is appropriate that they be acted upon expeditiously, but in no way
does defeating the previous question enhance that flexibility or the
rapidity with which those questions are taken up.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I will insert into the Record the Statement of Administration Policy
on H.R. 3301, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 3301--North American Energy Infrastructure Act
(Rep. Upton, R-Michigan, and 20 cosponsors, June 24, 2014)
The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3301, which would
require the specified Secretary to issue a ``certificate of
crossing'' for any cross-border segment of an oil pipeline
(Secretary of State) or electric transmission facility
(Secretary of Energy) within 120 days after the completion of
the environmental review, unless the Secretary finds that the
cross-border pipeline or electric transmission facility ``is
not in the public interest of the United States.''
The bill's 120-day approval requirement would circumvent
the current authority for issuing Presidential Permits for
cross-border pipelines and transmission facilities provided
by Executive Orders 13337 and 10485, as amended, which allow
for the full consideration of the complex issues raised by
the building of such infrastructure. That process dates back
through many Administrations and has effectively addressed
cross-border permitting decisions in a manner that serves the
national interest.
H.R. 3301 would impose an unreasonable deadline that would
curtail the thorough consideration of the issues involved,
which could result in serious security, safety, foreign
policy, environmental, economic, and other ramifications. By
preventing the opportunity for the necessary assessment of
all factors relevant to the national interest, the bill would
create significant policy risks and create legal uncertainty
for permitting applicants. Additionally, the bill would
prevent assessment of whether modifications to border-
crossing pipelines or electric transmission facilities are in
the national interest, which is provided for through the
current process.
H.R. 3301 would also raise serious trade implications by
eliminating the current statutory requirement that the
Department of Energy authorize orders for exports and imports
of natural gas to and from Canada and Mexico.
Because H.R. 3301 would circumvent longstanding and proven
processes for determining whether cross-border pipelines and
electric transmission facilities are in the national interest
by removing the Presidential permitting requirement, if
presented to the President, his senior advisors would
recommend that he veto this bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Let me just read one line here. It says:
Because H.R. 3301 would circumvent longstanding and proven
processes for determining whether cross-border pipelines and
electric transmission facilities are in the natural interest
by removing the Presidential permitting requirement, if
presented to the President, his senior advisors would
recommend that he veto this bill.
So we are discussing--we are spending time here discussing a bill
that will probably not be brought up at all in the Senate and will be
vetoed by the White House. So this is just kind of an exercise in
futility, when we should be here trying to figure out how to deal with
some of the bigger issues like climate change.
If you don't want to talk about climate change, let's talk about
increasing the minimum wage. If you don't want to talk about that,
let's talk about extending unemployment insurance for people who have
lost their jobs.
If you don't want to talk about that, let's talk about immigration
reform. Let's talk about something that actually matters, something
that--quite frankly, some of the things that are urgent for us to focus
on.
Instead, we get these bills that are being brought before us, under a
restrictive process, again, which is in keeping with the mindset of
this Congress, which is closed.
Notwithstanding what the Speaker said, that there would be this new
commitment to openness, this is now the most closed Congress in
history.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms.
Sinema).
Ms. SINEMA. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my colleague from
Arizona's motion because Arizona veterans demand immediate action.
At the Phoenix VA, managers and employees placed veterans on secret
lists where they had to wait months to see a doctor. Even more
horrifying are new whistleblower allegations that veterans died while
waiting on these lists and that VA managers ordered the records altered
to cover up these deaths.
This is not just immoral; it is criminal. Those responsible for this
disaster must be prosecuted and held accountable. They should also take
responsibility for what they have done to our veterans.
I call on the Phoenix VA management currently on administrative leave
to resign immediately and return the bonuses they received over the
past 2 years and the pay they have received while on administrative
leave.
Ongoing audits by the VA and the VA Office of Inspector General
reveal systemic problems with wait times, with the scheduling process,
and with the honesty and integrity of the system.
In a letter to the President sent yesterday, the Office of Special
Counsel revealed that the VA's procedures for responding to
whistleblower disclosures are woefully inadequate. This is totally
unacceptable.
VA and Congress must take action to provide our veterans the care
they need now, recoup bonuses paid to VA executives who fraudulently
manipulated the data, and fire VA executives responsible for these
inexcusable actions.
I appreciate the bipartisan work taking place to reform the VA and to
provide our veterans the care that they need. In fact, I cosponsored
and voted for both House bills.
The bottom line is that there is bipartisan legislation that can help
our veterans get the care they need and hold bad actors accountable
right now, so that is why I support this motion to send a bill to the
President's desk as quickly as possible.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Again, access and accountability are parts of the VA reform bills
that have been passed by this House and currently that is in
conference. Even today, they are having their first meeting of the
conference committee.
I, too, wish the administration would fire someone for incompetence.
Whether it be at the VA, the Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue
Service, healthcare.gov, the list of incompetencies grows larger every
day and just begs the question: What do you have to do to get fired by
the Obama administration?
I have got to share with you something else. This Statement of
Administration Policy--and this is the first time I have seen it here
as we are presenting the bill today--but it closes with the statement:
``Because H.R. 3301''--that is the permitting bill--
[[Page H5657]]
``would circumvent longstanding and proven processes.''
Proven processes? These processes are broken. That is why the
legislation is necessary--because the administration refuses to act.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I find it somewhat interesting here that my colleague from Texas is
all upset about the slowness of the permitting process when it comes to
these pipelines.
I think that there is bipartisan concern about the way the VA is
currently being managed. I think there is bipartisan concern that we
ought to make sure that the system is more responsive to our veterans.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick came to the floor and offered a statement, which
will be the subject of the previous question, that I think makes a lot
of sense. I mean, what she is talking about is a bill that is the
companion to the one that Senator McCain introduced in the United
States Senate.
I am a little kind of bothered by the fact that there is not more
impatience on the other side of the aisle to fix this VA system, to get
it right. Again, you could point all the fingers you want at the
administration, and they are trying to get it right.
There are things that we can do right now to more aggressively and
quickly address some of these issues, and that is what Mrs. Kirkpatrick
was talking about. That is what Ms. Sinema was talking about. That is
what Senator McCain is talking about in the United States Senate,
Senator Sanders as well.
That, to me, seems urgent. We ought to do this right now, and to kind
of use the excuse that, well, we passed a couple of these things and
maybe there will be a conference committee that will resolve all this
stuff--let's just do it. Let's just get this done.
Again, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question, so that we can bring up the very legislation that
Mrs. Kirkpatrick and Ms. Sinema talked about.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Again, I would reiterate that the veterans bills passed by this
House, passed by the House of Representatives, have now gone to
conference with the Senate. The most expeditious way to accomplish the
goals the gentleman referred to is for the conference committee to give
its report and bring that back to the floor of the House.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me just--I mean, there is just so much that I want to say here,
given the fact that there is so much that we need to do to help the
American people, and we are not doing it in this Congress.
We are bringing up kind of the same old-same old energy bills that
are going nowhere, that don't respond to the needs of our country, and
certainly don't address the issue of climate change.
My colleague talks about how the process is broken. He says the
Keystone XL has taken 5 years and counting and that shows that the
process is broken.
Let me just say that that project is a highly controversial project,
with significant environmental impacts. Because the Obama
administration took the time to do the environmental review, we have
more information on the project's impacts on climate change.
The State Department's final environmental review found that tar
sands produce significantly more carbon pollution than conventional
oil, that building the Keystone XL pipeline could allow more rapid
expansion of the tar sands, and that this expansion would exacerbate
climate change. That is something that we can't afford to do.
Last month, our Nation's leading climate scientists released the
country's third national climate assessment. The report confirms that
climate change is real, is being caused by humans, and is already
harming communities across America.
The report tells us the scientific evidence is unequivocal. The
impacts are being felt in every region. They are growing more urgent,
and they are going to get worse if we don't act.
A record drought is continuing to destroy crops in California.
Torrential rains have flooded Florida. Wildfires are getting more
intense. Coastal areas are being inundated as sea levels rise.
No sector of our economy, from oyster hatcheries on the West Coast to
maple syrup producers in New England, are untouched. Business as usual
is no longer an option. The same old-same old doesn't work.
If we are serious about taking action on climate change, saying no to
the Keystone XL pipeline, to me, is an obvious place to start; and the
pipeline would produce more carbon pollution than any other project
pending in the United States.
The additional carbon pollution from this single project is
equivalent to building seven new coal-fired power plants.
Now, if we can't say ``no'' to this project on climate grounds, where
are we going to draw the line?
{time} 1315
So I commend the Obama administration for taking the time to get this
decision right.
The environment matters. For years, my friends on the other side of
the aisle ignored the environment. I mean, it was always that the
environmentalists were the enemy. You know, being good stewards of the
environment was somehow a bad thing to do. Well, look at what is
happening around us.
So I think it is time that there be a change of attitude, and it is
time that we actually bring serious legislation to the floor that deals
with, how do we meet our energy needs but how do we also deal with this
issue of climate change?
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. I yield myself 1 minute.
Madam Speaker, the oil produced in the Province of Alberta belongs to
the country of Canada. Yes, it may traverse the United States, if the
Keystone pipeline is built. But if it is not, the oil will traverse
western Canada and be shipped to China. The oil will still be burned.
The carbon will still go into the air.
Who would you rather have in charge of the refining process:
refineries in China who do not have the environmental controls, or
refineries in Texas who do?
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 4\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the
text of the amendment that I am going to offer if we defeat the
previous question 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 Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
Again, I just want to remind my colleagues what we would like to
bring up. If we defeat the previous question, we will bring up an
amendment to the rule that brings legislation forward that mirrors the
bipartisan measure that overwhelmingly passed in the Senate this month
dealing with some of the VA's most pressing problems. So that is why
defeating the previous question would be important.
Let me just close by saying, again, on the environmental issues here,
listening to my friend from Texas talk about the issue of climate
change, all you hear is excuses why we can't do something, and why we
need to do the same old-same old.
I have to tell you that if we don't deal with this issue sooner,
rather than later, then history will not look kindly upon us. We may
not have a history in the future if we don't address this issue sooner,
rather than later.
This is a big deal. This is a big deal. This is something that we
ought to be talking about on the House floor at this very moment. If
you want to talk about an energy policy, we ought to also talk about
climate change. But
[[Page H5658]]
yet there is nothing. There is nothing. It really is appalling.
And the legislation that is being brought before us today is going
nowhere. So we are wasting our time talking about bills that are going
nowhere. They are going nowhere in the Senate. The White House has
already issued a veto threat. So we are just kind of spinning our
wheels here.
Instead, maybe we could use this week to do something productive. If
you defeat the previous question, we could actually bring up the
Senate-passed VA bill and get that done and help our veterans. And get
it done quickly. Maybe that would be a good thing to do. Maybe that
would make this week worth it, rather than a week spent talking about
things that are going nowhere.
So with that, Madam Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues again to
vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on
the rule. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, if it were really true that the actions we take here
don't mean anything, then why did the Department of Energy suddenly
release one of the export licenses merely on the fact that the Energy
and Commerce Committee held a hearing on H.R. 6, the bill offered by
the gentleman from Colorado, Cory Gardner, to require a time certain
for the export license to be decided upon?
Why does the gentleman from New Mexico, Senator Udall, have very
similar legislation pending over in the Senate? I would say this is one
proposal that perhaps has a very good chance of becoming law, even in
divided governments, such as we have today.
On the issue of the previous question, I would remind the body that
the most expeditious way to get to a solution for the problems that are
being experienced by our Nation's veterans within the VA system is for
the conference committee to proceed.
If we pass something today, it still goes back over to the Senate. It
doesn't expedite a darn thing. The conference committee is the correct
way for that to go. So I do urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the
previous question.
Today's rule provides for the consideration of two key pieces of
legislation to move our country toward a more energy-independent
environment. I certainly thank Chairman Upton and Cory Gardner for
producing bipartisan pieces of legislation to address real problems
that have arisen in the permitting process, when politics are injected
into what should be a merit-based system.
H.R. 6, the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, and H.R.
3301, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act, are thoughtful
pieces of legislation that deserve the support of this body.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 636 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
4841) to improve the access of veterans to medical services
from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Oversight, and the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the
Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to
no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day
the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of
business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 4841.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam 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. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219,
nays 184, not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 341]
YEAS--219
Aderholt
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
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
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
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
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)
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--184
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
Caardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutieerrez
Hahn
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
Lipinski
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
[[Page H5659]]
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meng
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
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Saanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--28
Campbell
Cantor
Carney
Crowley
Edwards
Fitzpatrick
Hanabusa
Hanna
Kingston
Lankford
Lewis
Loebsack
Lofgren
Meeks
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Nunnelee
Polis
Pompeo
Rangel
Rush
Scott, David
Serrano
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stutzman
Velaazquez
Williams
{time} 1347
Messrs. GARCIA, GALLEGO, AL GREEN of Texas, and Ms. PINGREE of Maine
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mrs. CAPITO, Messrs. LUETKEMEYER and TIBERI changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
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. McGOVERN. Madam 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 221,
noes 186, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 342]
AYES--221
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
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
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
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
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--186
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
Caardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
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
Hahn
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
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meng
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
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Saanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--24
Campbell
Cantor
Carney
Crowley
Fitzpatrick
Gutieerrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Kingston
Lankford
Loebsack
Meeks
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Nunnelee
Polis
Pompeo
Rangel
Rush
Serrano
Smith (WA)
Velaazquez
Walberg
Williams
{time} 1355
Messrs. CUMMINGS and DAVID SCOTT of Georgia changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. BARBER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
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.
____________________