[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 120 (Tuesday, July 29, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H6989-H6995]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4315, 21ST CENTURY ENDANGERED 
                        SPECIES TRANSPARENCY ACT

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 693 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 693

       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. 4315) to amend the Endangered Species Act of 
     1973 to require publication on the Internet of the basis for 
     determinations that species are endangered species or 
     threatened species, 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 resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided 
     and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Natural Resources. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources 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 113-55. 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York by way 
of Kentucky, Ms. Slaughter, pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded 
is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days in which they may revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a 
structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 4315, the Endangered 
Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act, and

[[Page H6990]]

makes in order four separate amendments for floor consideration.
  In fact, this rule is generous in making all filed amendments which 
were germane and otherwise met the rules of the House in order. Only 
four were filed, and they are all made in order, so it is hard to see 
how anyone could vote against this resolution as not being fair.
  The resolution also provides for 1 hour of general debate on the bill 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member from the House Committee on Natural Resources.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Utah (Mr. 
Bishop) for yielding me the time. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is actually a package of four 
bills--H.R. 4315, H.R. 4316, H.R. 4317, and H.R. 4318--which aim to 
derail the Endangered Species Act.
  The four bills are a product of the House Natural Resources 
Committee's Endangered Species Working Group, a committee working group 
which had not one Democrat Member on it, so that there was no 
bipartisan discussion. There is always room to discuss how we can 
improve legislation, but the negotiations should not be limited to 
backroom negotiations with a select few from a single party.
  It is ironic the bill is entitled ``21st Century Endangered Species 
Transparency Act'' when the process to create the bill was anything but 
transparent. If the Endangered Species Act needs to be improved in 
order to better achieve the bill's purpose, then let's have a robust 
bipartisan conversation in an open forum, which is what we call the 
committee process.
  Now, the package we are considering today, however, does not have any 
bipartisan support because it would create additional red tape that 
undermines essential protections provided for the Endangered Species 
Act.
  The Endangered Species Act was passed over 40 years ago to protect 
imperiled animals and plants from extinction, and it is one of the most 
important tools we have to ensure our Nation's wildlife is protected 
for future generations.
  These bills today do nothing to continue that wonderful background, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to introduce you to an individual in history by the name of 
John Gochnaur. John Gochnaur was the shortstop for the Cleveland 
Indians in 1902 and in 1903. In 1902, he played the entire year, and 
his batting average was .185, as he committed also 48 errors, but was 
still good enough to be the shortstop in 1903 as well, where he 
completed a second season, once again hitting .185, but this time 
committing a still record 98 errors as shortstop, which means one out 
of every five times he touched the ball, he threw it away.

                              {time}  1230

  John Gochnaur probably has the record now of being the most inept 
major league player we have ever had in history, never hitting above 
the Mendoza Line and setting the standard for errors. The worst major 
league player--which is still quite an achievement to be a major league 
player--but the worst major league player we have ever had in history 
hit .185. The Endangered Species Act batting average would be .010 if 
you round it up. They have had 1,500 species listed, only 12 have 
actually passed the test and been recovered, for an actual batting 
average of .008, or .010 if you really want to round up.
  The Endangered Species Act, quite frankly, is the most ineffective 
and inefficient piece of legislation that we have in the history of 
this country. It does not work. It does not meet its goals. It never 
has and it never will. The sad part is, though, this act does not go 
into significant changes to the Endangered Species Act, which would 
change that batting average. Instead, Chairman Hastings has to be 
commended for getting a group of people to work together that did a 
study, got testimony, produced a report, and came up with the most 
basic of reforms that have to be necessary before anything significant 
can go on past that.
  What these reforms are is simply saying, look, if you are going to 
have an Endangered Species Act, for heaven's sake, make sure that the 
data that is used to come up with the realization of the program you 
have is open to the people, it is transparent and it is public 
knowledge. They are paying for it. You might as well make sure that 
they have the opportunity to see it.
  The President of the United States recognized this when he said in 
2008:

       Democracy requires accountability; accountability requires 
     transparency.

  And then he quoted Justice Brandeis, who said that ``sunlight is said 
to be the best of disinfectants.'' That is the concept that is here. 
The data used to make these decisions should be available to the 
public, and presently, it is not.
  One of the witnesses in the committee, when it was a full committee 
markup on this bill, was a long-time biologist by the name Mr. Ramey, 
who said:

       What are the effects of this lack of transparency on the 
     public when data are not possible or accessible? Legitimate 
     scientific inquiry and debate is effectively eliminated, and 
     no independent third party can produce the results. This 
     action puts the basis of some ESA decisions outside the realm 
     of science.

  We have the issue that if there is data making these decisions, 
people should know about it. It should be transparent. All of the data 
that they use to make these decisions should be transparent. That is 
not what is happening today.
  In an exchange between the director of Fish and Wildlife and the 
ranking member, the ranking member asked:

       Okay. But again, why would a scientist wish to withhold 
     that data? I mean, if we gave them the public funds, I guess 
     we could require they publish the data; right? I mean, we 
     could change. We could put that into the language.

  The Fish and Wildlife official said:

       Congress could do that.

  The ranking member said:

       Okay. That might be something we would want to do. I don't 
     understand why we would go down the path of withholding the 
     data.

  That is what this bill does. There are two elements to it. The most 
significant part is the first of transparency. If there is data that is 
going to be used, we need to make sure that we have access to that 
particular data.
  This is a bill that was passed almost four decades ago. This is a 
bill the last time it was addressed I was still wearing saddleback 
jeans and platform shoes and my hair had color and it was parted down 
the middle and it covered more than just my ears. We haven't touched it 
since that time. They didn't have iPods back then the last time we 
touched it. It is a new era that requires new information and new data, 
and there is no reason that should be withheld from the American 
people, and that is what this bill tries to do.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Montana (Mr. Daines), who has had to live with the realities of 
the Endangered Species Act.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for his 
leadership on this important issue. I rise in support of the rule and 
H.R. 4315, the 21st Century Endangered Species Transparency Act.
  My home State of Montana is called the Treasure State, where we found 
settlers. In fact, my great-great-grandmother came out and homesteaded 
in Montana. They found productive ag lands. They found riches of 
minerals to sustain our industries among the many species that are 
important to our fishing and hunting heritage.
  When the Endangered Species Act became law, Congress committed to 
helping to sustain our unique ecosystems and our way of life. However, 
too often ESA decisions are not based on sound science and it is about 
political science, unfortunately, and the law results in encouraging 
habitual litigation. The result has been fewer jobs and deteriorating 
forest health. And, as Mr. Bishop mentioned, the species aren't 
actually recovering with a batting average of .008. Frankly, the 
Endangered Species Act is like a 40-year-old ranch pickup: it once 
served a useful purpose but is in bad need of repair.

[[Page H6991]]

  By increasing transparency--and this is about repairing the 
Endangered Species Act, bringing it forward to the 21st century so it 
actually delivers the outcomes we all desire, and that is recovering 
the species versus just listing them. H.R. 4315 begins an important 
process toward modernizing this well-intentioned but out-of-balance and 
out-of-date law. I urge the House and Senate to pass it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Collins) because he also is faced with the unique situation, 
because this is not just a Western issue. This is an issue that affects 
all of us.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as we come here today, one of 
the things that strikes me--and, of course, I support the rule and the 
underlying bill, H.R. 4315, because it really strikes a balance and, as 
part of the working group that has been meeting under Chairman Hastings 
and others, including Mr. Bishop, dealing with this, as my friend from 
Utah said, it is an issue that has not been touched in many, many 
years. There is nothing that really, from our perspective of 
government, should not be looked at every once in awhile, and 
especially when you get things such as the Endangered Species Act, 
which has grown and multiplied and just really expanded to where not 
only does it affect Western States, but it affects States like Georgia.
  To come to the floor today to take issue with a bill that simply 
permits the concept--and my friend from Utah said we could have 
actually gone after a lot more than this. We could have taken on the 
Endangered Species than this. We could have taken on the Endangered 
Species Act and said: Let's make it better for the 21st century. 
Instead, we went to targeted reform, targeted aspects of it. We said: 
Let's look at transparency. Let's look at capping attorneys' fees. 
Instead of paying pockets of attorneys, it is okay to still sue. We are 
saying it is okay if you want to sue, but we are not going to pay 
unlimited amounts just so you can sue for maybe dubious data or devious 
wins. This is an issue of transparency.

  Wouldn't we want to put that money into protecting actual endangered 
species? Is that not what the Endangered Species Act is about? Is it 
actually protecting endangered species?
  The problem with the Endangered Species Act, however, is that it has 
expanded to where now the Endangered Species is jobs. It is people. It 
is the people who are affected by the Endangered Species Act, and all 
we are saying is let's shine a little light on it. That is a song from 
back when the ESA was first passed. Let's shine a light. ``This little 
light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine.'' Well, let's shine a little bit 
of light on this as we go forward.
  A ``no'' vote on this legislation to me is simply a ``no'' vote, 
whether it is the rule or the bill. It is a ``no'' vote for the status 
quo. If there is anything that this country is screaming, whether it is 
Republican or Democrat, they are tired of the status quo, and 
especially in something like this, because when they hear about it, 
they don't understand it.
  I am going to tell a little story that comes from Georgia, and it 
involves the Indiana bat. The Indiana bat is on the endangered species 
list. A few years ago--oh, oh, be quiet. A few years ago, a transmitter 
went off. It was a little beep. Oh, oh. You might hear it on your 
phone. It was a beep in southern Tennessee. It only went off one time 
from everything that we can gather, but that transponder hit said the 
Indiana bat is moving south.
  Well, we expanded the net and said nothing north of Atlanta. All of a 
sudden we have to start checking for the Indiana bat. We checked. We 
have looked. I have it on my phone here. I brought one to the floor 
today. I have a compass. I have a map. I asked this before and nobody 
stepped forward, but I will take my compass. I will take my map, and if 
you help me, come to northeast Georgia and find the Indiana bat, there 
is probably a prize. I will take you to the Waffle House and buy you 
whatever you want, because so far it hasn't been found. In fact, the 
last time the Indiana bat was actually seen in Georgia was in Athens in 
the 1940s.
  Now, Athens is home to a wonderful, fine, upstanding institution 
called the University of Georgia. Go Dawgs. But it was probably found 
or seen maybe after one of the celebrations of our great victories on 
Saturday on the gridiron when everyone is partying, and they may have 
seen the Indiana bat and said, ``There's the bat,'' but we haven't seen 
it since.
  So I am not sure what we are looking for, but I tell you what we are 
doing. We are paying almost $100,000 on every road project over and 
above the cost for hard-earned taxpayer dollars on the Federal and 
State level looking for a bat that may have existed in a fraternity 
party in Athens 45, 50, 60 years ago because nobody knows. But it came 
because, listen--those in the gallery, those watching on TV, listen--
the transponder may go off, and we may just block off all kinds of 
areas and say ``pay more'' because the transponder went off.
  Now, many times our friends across the aisle say we on our side, we 
just want business and we don't care about endangered species, we don't 
care about the environment. There is no other Republican, and when you 
come to the Ninth District of Georgia--and I know my friend from 
Colorado feels that his State is beautiful, and it is. It is great. But 
the Ninth District of Georgia is pretty nice, too. And I want clean 
water and I want good roads. I want the things that matter because the 
environment in north Georgia is great. But what I do not want is an 
overreaching regulation that is not addressed when we are simply asking 
for transparency. We are simply asking for transparency. When you are 
asking for transparency, my question not only is where is the bat, but 
where is the problem. Where is the bat? Where is the problem?
  The problem with this bill is nothing. The problem with this bill is 
it begins to shine light on the things that need shining light on. 
Disinfectant, I am not sure what we are doing here because right now 
there is no disinfectant. We need transparency to shine a light. ``This 
little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine.'' I am going to let it 
shine on something that protects taxpayer dollars, that protects 
transparency and does the things that it is supposed to do.
  And by the way, if you happen to be coming by, the problem with this 
is simply transparency. It protects taxpayer dollars and protects 
endangered species by using the latest in science and being open to the 
public.

                              {time}  1245

  But let me ask all who may be watching: if you are driving through 
the great State of Georgia, if you are in north Georgia in the Ninth 
District, I have got a lot of places for you to come, but when you get 
there bring your binoculars, bring your compass, bring a map, and if 
you find the bat I will see you at the Waffle House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair and to refrain from addressing occupants of the 
gallery.
  Without objection, the gentleman from Colorado will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  To be clear, the goal of the Endangered Species Act doesn't exist 
just to get species off the list, it exists to keep species on the 
planet, and has a tremendous track record of success--99 percent 
effective at preventing the extinction of species that have been listed 
on the endangered species list.
  There is strong precedent in passing bipartisan Endangered Species 
Act measures. Last Congress, I was very proud to be an original 
cosponsor of Mr. Bishop's Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension 
Act, which became law in January of 2013. The Endangered Fish Recovery 
Programs Extension Act facilitated the recovery of four endangered 
species native to the Upper Colorado River Basin. The bill ensures 
compliance with the Endangered Species Act for over 200 projects that 
use water from the Colorado River and provided enough water for 
agricultural and municipal water use as well.
  I salute Representative Bishop's efforts to pull together a 
bipartisan group from Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming to work 
together on that successful modification to the Endangered Species Act.
  What we have before us today is not an example of that same 
bipartisan spirit and open process of work that

[[Page H6992]]

can build upon, rather than take a step back from, protecting species 
that are an important part of our ecosystem.
  This bill in its current form would not only waste taxpayer dollars 
and Federal Government agency time by creating additional red tape and 
bureaucracy, but it is also a waste of our limited remaining time in 
session. Here we are, Mr. Speaker, with a border crisis, crises 
breaking out across the Middle East, and yet we are debating a 
particular change to the Endangered Species Act, which, regardless of 
its merits, is simply not one of the top two issues, five issues, 10 
issues, even top 100 issues that I have heard from my constituents 
about over the last year.
  People wonder why this legislative body is as unpopular as we are, 
with an approval rating of 12 percent. One need look no further than 
what we are working on. Rather than addressing the budget deficit or 
restoring fiscal stability to our country, rather than securing the 
border and passing comprehensive immigration reform, we are instead 
discussing a bill that weakens the Endangered Species Act. And 
regardless of whether Members want to strengthen it or weaken it or 
modify it--Americans care about jobs, the economy, fiscal 
responsibility, addressing our border crisis--having problems with the 
Endangered Species Act is simply not on the minds of most everyday 
American families. I think most American families think the Endangered 
Species Act is a fine thing, maybe they think it should move this way 
or that way or be better or stronger or weaker, but that is not the 
issue that they want us addressing with our limited time in session.
  This is our last week in session in the month of July. In the month 
of August, this esteemed body won't even meet once. In September, we 
will come back for 2 or 3 weeks. I don't know--are we going to be 
discussing endangered species for those 2 or 3 weeks as well?
  It kind of reminds me of the historical precedent of Emperor Nero 
fiddling while Rome burned. Here we are in record deficits, war and 
threatened wars are enveloping the Middle East with the Islamic state 
and ISIS occupying much of Syria and Iraq, with the uncertainty in 
eastern Ukraine and separatists engaged in battle, with the precarious 
recovery of the economy, with things getting harder and harder for 
middle class American families to get by and support themselves and 
their family, and here we are with only 3 days left in session before 
September discussing relatively minor changes that add another 
bureaucratic layer of red tape to the Endangered Species Act. It is 
simply not what the people in my district hired me to fight for them 
on, and I don't think it is what the people in this country want 
Congress to do at this point.
  There are so many issues that the American people, the people who 
sent us here to represent them, agree on, where there is common ground.
  One example is immigration reform. Polls have shown that 87 percent 
of Americans support comprehensive immigration reform. Perhaps we found 
that last 13 percent of people who approve of Congress, maybe it is 
those same people who don't want to see immigration reform. The only 
people left who approve of these obstructionist tactics with regard to 
immigration reform, the tactics which are tearing families apart, 
hurting our economy, bloating our deficit, and preventing us from 
securing our border, are an ever-dwindling percentage of Americans.
  Now that we are dealing with this Endangered Species Act, I hope that 
we can get back to addressing immigration reform. Let us have a vote on 
comprehensive immigration reform, a vote on raising the minimum wage, a 
vote on a comprehensive plan to balance the budget. Let's have a real 
debate and exchange real ideas to move our Nation forward.
  There are a number of flaws in this modification of the Endangered 
Species Act which prevent it from being a true piece of bipartisan 
legislation with wide support from this body, like I had the 
opportunity to work on with Mr. Bishop last session. But I think even 
more importantly, Mr. Speaker, we just need to ask ourselves why, with 
days left before Congress adjourns for the summer, are we considering a 
topic that, while surely worthy of debate, hardly raises to the level 
of these pressing issues, like our budget deficit, the border crisis, 
or the Middle East, in which I hope that this body can have a 
substantive debate around resolving?
  While we are here debating a partisan, politically charged bill that 
threatens to undermine the Endangered Species Act, 32 wildfires larger 
than 5,000 acres are burning in seven Western States. My district had 
several last summer, and we are worried about this summer. These fires 
cover a total of 1.4 million acres and are a serious threat to homes, 
lives, livelihoods, and health.
  If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule to bring up the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act of 2014. Already 196 
Members have signed a discharge petition to bring this legislation to 
the floor of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this rule or the underlying 
bill.

  The Republicans are committed to partisan politics over progress for 
our country, and this bill is yet another example of that agenda.
  In the last 3 days of legislative business before a summer recess of 
1\1/2\ months, House Republicans are using this valuable time in the 
people's Chamber to simply pass a bill that obstructs the Endangered 
Species Act rather than deals with any of the critical issues facing 
our country.
  Congress should be considering legislation to secure the border or 
deal with the crisis of unaccompanied minors on our southern border, to 
balance our budget, to reform our broken immigration system, to deal 
with wildfires, to raise the minimum wage, to protect workers. But 
instead, here we are debating partisan changes to a piece of 
legislation that has, frankly, served us well and our ecosystems well 
over the prior decades.
  We do have an emergency on our southern border with regard to 
unaccompanied minors from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. We need 
to have a comprehensive strategy to deal with that and make sure that 
we are not overwhelmed by people from other countries.
  Before we adjourn for recess, Congress could and should address 
immigration reform. The American people want us to pass bipartisan 
immigration reform. The bill passed the Senate with over two-thirds 
majority. That is very rare. Democrats and Republicans came together to 
pass a commonsense immigration reform bill that more than 80 percent of 
the American people support, and more than two-thirds of the Senate 
support it.
  If we can schedule that bill for a vote this week, I am confident it 
would pass right here on the floor of the House of Representatives. We 
have a bipartisan House bill, H.R. 15, that is ready to come to the 
floor and be voted on, and I believe it would pass.
  I am honored to be a sponsor of H.R. 15, the bipartisan immigration 
reform bill. The bill would create jobs here, reduce our budget 
deficit, ensure America is more competitive in the global economy, 
unite families, and secure our borders. Just as importantly, it will 
make sure that our immigration system reflects our values as Americans, 
a Nation of laws and a Nation of immigrants.
  House Republicans have refused to allow a vote on immigration reform 
and it failed to bring forth a single bill to help improve our broken 
immigration system or our dire crisis at the border. Instead, we are 
left with time that we could use to debate minute changes that add 
bureaucracy and red tape to an already encumbered Endangered Species 
Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question so that we can discuss the Wildfire Disaster Funding 
Act of 2014. It is so important to my home State and so many others in 
the West and Mountain West.
  I also will oppose the rule and the underlying bill and encourage my 
colleagues to do the same.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page H6993]]

  I am pleased to talk about the Endangered Species Act here because we 
need to make sure that the purpose of the Endangered Species Act is not 
to make sure that the government is always funding the listing and the 
maintenance of these species, but to make sure that they are healthy 
enough so that the government doesn't have to do that, in which case, I 
am sorry, the batting average is still .008. The Endangered Species Act 
is failing in that effort.
  The methods don't work. But we are not discussing the methods here 
today. We are discussing something that is simply a commonsense 
solution to how we move forward with the Endangered Species Act.
  The Governors understand that as well. I received a letter from the 
Western Governors' Association, signed by the Governor from Nevada, as 
well as the Governor from my friend's home State of Colorado, urging us 
to have transparency in this action, transparency in the Endangered 
Species Act. It is important that we simply know what is or is not 
taking place.
  The Endangered Species Act, unfortunately, has an impact on real 
people. It is a regulatory taking by the Federal Government. It impacts 
real people's ability to use their property, it impacts real people's 
ability to have jobs and maintain them. To say that talking about this 
impact on these people is not good enough, that this is not a high 
enough version, this is not raising to the level, we don't care enough 
about these people who are impacted by that act, is something we in 
Congress should never say. It is significant, it is important, and to 
make commonsense improvements to the Endangered Species Act should be 
the goal.
  Let me explain a couple of different areas in which these reforms are 
going to be significant and important.
  The first one is this tries to cap the amount of money we spend 
wasted on litigation costs that should be actually going to the 
enforcement of the Endangered Species Act and recovery of these 
species. This act tries to set a limit on what an attorney can get for 
engaging in a petition against the government for the Endangered 
Species Act. It is mind-boggling to me that in most of the agencies of 
the government we put caps on what can be obtained in attorney fees who 
sue the government, but we don't in the Endangered Species Act.
  So in San Diego, the Jonas Salk Elementary School was postponed 
indefinitely. The firm that actually did that postponement so the kids 
didn't have their school charged the Federal Government six figures, 
and I promise you the first number in that six figures was not 1.
  In the Clinton administration, they were averaging 20 petitions a 
year on this act. Today, we are averaging 1,200 petitions a year. So 
obviously, we have a problem, as no one has a total concept of what the 
total cost of this litigation is or how many full-time employees we are 
using simply for this litigation, although we do know that the Fish and 
Wildlife Service allotted in 2013 $21 million and 86 full-time 
employees just to handling the issue of litigation.
  The Ag Department has told us that the litigation cost was the third-
largest cost that they were running at that time. We don't have that 
data. We need to have that particular data, and we also need to put in 
caps so we are not wasting our money on litigation, we are putting the 
money in the program where it should be.
  That is a significant commonsense element of this particular bill. 
But the most significant commonsense element is simply saying people 
should know what data is being used to reach the decisions. The bill 
itself says the Federal Government shall cooperate--shall cooperate--to 
the maximum extent practical with the States. That simply is not being 
done.
  Let me give you a couple of examples.
  First of all, the dunes sagebrush lizard--a wonderful little lizard, 
Mr. Speaker, in your home State of Texas--that is trying to be listed 
by the Federal Government, they were using data from the 1960s, 
determined that they were locally extinct, the lizard was locally 
extinct in an area where it flat-out was not extinct. Had they gone 
through with this listing, 47,000 jobs in this district in Texas would 
have been impacted by this particular listing, and the data was 
inaccurate.
  The Governor of Idaho asked for a FOIA request dealing with the 
sagebrush. He got back the emails in the FOIA request, and to summarize 
those emails that dealt with the national technical team report, the 
emails basically said: This is our approach--does anyone out there have 
any kind of data we can use? And if there was no data, then their next 
step was to use the best guess of the elements of the members who were 
actually working in that particular department.
  That is not the way you make decisions. You collect the data first, 
make it public, let people know about it, then you create the decisions 
on where you want it to go. In Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado, 
actually had to go to court to try to get the department to give them 
the data they were using for the decisions they were going to try to 
use on the endangered species in that county, and that simply is not an 
example of how you cooperate to the maximum extent possible with the 
States.
  We have an issue with prairie dogs in southern Utah. The problem is 
the Federal Government only counts prairie dogs on Federal lands to 
determine if they are a viable species or not. Prairie dogs are very 
abundant on private lands and State lands, to the point that you can 
actually get a permit to hunt them on private lands. Notwithstanding 
the fact that there is an abundance of prairie dogs, the rural electric 
co-op down there had to spend $150,000 to airlift transmission lines to 
build a transmission line so they went over Federal habitat for prairie 
dogs, even though other people hunting prairie dogs happened to be on 
the private property.
  This is silly, this is unrealistic, this should not take place if we 
were actually having a commonsense approach to it.
  The bladderpod up in Franklin County, Washington, was threatened to 
be listed on the endangered species. A local university came up with 
its own study that proved the DNA of this bladderpod was no different 
than another flower that was not endangered in that area.

                              {time}  1300

  Nonetheless, the Fish and Wildlife Service rejected that particular 
piece of data. They ignored it. They said it wasn't peer-reviewed, but 
the sad part is that they ultimately refused to tell us the data that 
they were using to reach their own decision. Even when that data was 
subpoenaed, they refused to comply with that particular subpoena.
  We simply have a problem here, in that decisions are being made on 
the Endangered Species Act without having public access to the data 
being used to make those decisions, and that is wrong.
  That is not the way you run a government. That is not the way 
transparency has to be. The people of the United States are paying for 
all this data. They have a right to see what it is. They have a right 
to look at it. They have a right to question it.
  All this bill does is simply make the data that is being used 
public--so people know exactly what you are making those decisions on--
and try to limit the amount that we are spending on needless 
litigation, so you put some kind of caps on them. That is the first 
step.
  Does that solve all the problems of the ESA? Of course not, but it is 
the first and most important step. This is a commonsense approach that 
is rational. It is where we need to go. If we can't get this done, no 
other reforms of a system that is failing can possibly take place.
  I urge adoption of this bill. I support the underlying bill. I urge 
the adoption of the rule that would do it.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to reiterate this is a fair rule, and 
it is appropriate to the underlying piece of legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 693 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House

[[Page H6994]]

     resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
     of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3992) to 
     provide for wildfire suppression operations, 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 the Budget, the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Agriculture, and the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural 
     Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the 
     Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to 
     no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day 
     the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the 
     Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3992.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 192, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 458]

                               YEAS--224

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     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
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     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
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--192

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     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
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes

[[Page H6995]]


     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
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Brady (TX)
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Cleaver
     DesJarlais
     Graves (MO)
     Hanabusa
     Hinojosa
     Issa
     Miller, Gary
     Nunnelee
     Perlmutter
     Pitts
     Pompeo
     Ryan (OH)

                              {time}  1331

  Messrs. GRIJALVA, CONYERS, and GARCIA changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 458, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225, 
noes 192, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 459]

                               AYES--225

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     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
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     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
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--192

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     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
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     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
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     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
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Barton
     Brady (TX)
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Cleaver
     DesJarlais
     Graves (MO)
     Hanabusa
     Issa
     Miller, Gary
     Nunnelee
     Perlmutter
     Pitts
     Pompeo

                              {time}  1339

  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.

                          ____________________