[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 128 (Tuesday, September 9, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H7307-H7314]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5078, WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES 
    REGULATORY OVERREACH PROTECTION ACT OF 2014, AND PROVIDING FOR 
   CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 644, DISAPPROVAL OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S 
FAILURE TO NOTIFY CONGRESS BEFORE RELEASING INDIVIDUALS FROM GUANTANAMO 
                                  BAY

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 715 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 715

       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. 5078) to preserve existing rights and 
     responsibilities with respect to waters of the United States, 
     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 Transportation and Infrastructure. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. No 
     amendment to the bill 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. 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.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the resolution (H. Res. 644) condemning and 
     disapproving of the Obama administration's failure to comply 
     with the lawful statutory requirement to notify Congress 
     before releasing individuals detained at United States Naval 
     Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and expressing national 
     security concerns over the release of five Taliban leaders 
     and the repercussions of negotiating with terrorists. The 
     amendments to the resolution and the preamble recommended by 
     the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the resolution 
     shall be considered as adopted. The resolution, as amended, 
     shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble, as 
     amended, to adoption without intervening motion except: (1) 
     one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed 
     Services; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Black). The gentleman from Utah is 
recognized for 1 hour.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for 
the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may 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. Madam Speaker, this resolution provides for a 
structured rule for consideration of H.R. 5078, the Waters of the 
United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014, and makes in 
order three amendments, all from Democrats, for floor consideration.
  It provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the House 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  In addition, this resolution provides for a closed rule for 
consideration of House Resolution 644, which condemns the 
administration's clear failure to follow the law requiring 30 days' 
advance congressional notification if any terrorist detainees at 
Guantanamo are to be released and condemning this administration's 
policy of selectively negotiating with terrorists to secure the release 
of an Army staff sergeant.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided 
between the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services 
Committee.
  While these are separate issues, the two separate pieces of 
legislation covered under this rule, unfortunately, share one common 
theme: the practice of this administration to stretch the law.
  As Bill Veeck used to say when he was running his baseball team, he 
doesn't break the rules, he just tests their elasticity. This 
administration has tested the elasticity from some of these rules and 
laws to the point where they have broken, and it is an overreach of the 
authority under the law.
  Madam Speaker, let me talk for just a second about H.R. 5078 that 
deals with the Clean Water Act. This is a bipartisan bill. It was 
passed in the committee by a voice vote supported by many State and 
local governments and has largely been ignored by this administration 
as the administration seeks to go around Congress and attempt to revise 
administrative rules asserting a Federal stranglehold on private 
enterprise and job creation.
  One may want to know why the U.S. economy is still in a Jimmy Carter-
like malaise situation after 6 years with this administration. Just 
taking a look at the underlying issue of this bill finds an answer: the 
administration wants more rulemaking authority, more regulations, and a 
stronger Federal stranglehold on what you and I can and can't do, what 
business owners can and can't do, and what farmers can or can't do with 
their own property.
  Clearly, when the Clean Water Act was passed, it specified that the 
primary responsibility for water issues were to lay with the States. It 
is very clear when they came up with the concept of navigable waters of 
the United States, the Federal Government had a jurisdictional interest 
in interstate water regulations, but not intrastate.
  Twice the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled against the 
agencies that have been managing the Clean Water Act and saying simply 
that they overstretched their authority, they stretched their limits, 
and they stretched what is the power given to them under this 
particular act.
  Now, unfortunately, we see an administration that is trying to move 
around that. Two Congresses--the 110th and the 111th--had legislation 
that was introduced to try and change these provisions of the Clean 
Water Act. Both times they were met with strong bipartisan opposition 
which didn't go anywhere.
  Now, the administration, with much of their work done in closed-door 
session without local input, are trying to draft a proposed 
administrative rule that takes the Supreme Court decisions--it 
misconstrues their decisions and manipulates their decisions, so that, 
in effect, it turns the cases that we are attempting to put limitations 
on what the Clean Water Act authorized the government to do and use 
that as a justification for the Agency to broaden its jurisdiction and 
increase the controls it has over waters of the United States and 
individuals. In so doing, it actually harms people.
  Overregulation seems to be one of this administration's hallmark. 
This

[[Page H7308]]

bill, in a bipartisan manner, will address the proper way to go about 
modifying the Clean Water Act and its relation to Federal power, such 
that it will not further stifle jobs, economic growth, or hurt people, 
while it still protects the environment.
  The rule before us is still a good bill. It deals with two vitally 
important pieces of legislation. I urge their adoption, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I thank my friend, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), for yielding 
me the customary 30 minutes for debate.
  We are back here, and this is our first legislation after a lengthy 
recess, and the fact of the matter is that, after next week, we will be 
on yet another lengthy recess headed into the November 4 election.
  When we began this session, the 113th Congress, the Speaker of the 
House commented--and I won't bother to quote him, I will just summarize 
briefly what he said--that this would be the most open legislative 
period that we have seen.
  Ironically, today, dealing with these two pieces of legislation in 
this particular rule, we are seeing one portion of it structured, and 
for the 74th time--count them, 74 times--we are dealing with a closed 
rule.
  What that means, America, is that your Representatives here in the 
House of Representatives, on the subject of legislation dealing with 
House Resolution 644, having released Taliban prisoners in exchange for 
Sergeant Bergdahl, your Representatives will not be able to amend that 
legislation, and the general debate period will be the only time that a 
limited number of Members, in 1 hour, will have an opportunity to speak 
to the issue.
  I think that is wrong, as I think that most of the closed rules 
previous to this 74th have been wrong. Let me hasten to add, when 
Democrats were in the majority--and I remember being here in 1993 and 
hearing on the radio that Democrats were doing closed rules, I had not 
come to Congress, I didn't understand that dynamic, and Democrats did 
closed rules as well.
  I don't think that is right. I think this body should operate openly. 
Even if it takes time for us to have Members who choose to come down 
and debate legislation, I think they should have that opportunity.
  Madam Speaker, there is a lot that we could be doing this September. 
Americans need good-paying jobs. The working poor who are making the 
minimum wage deserve to make a living wage. We have recently seen 
demonstrations in 100 cities where people working at $7.35 or $8 an 
hour are demonstrating, saying, ``Give me a chance.''

  While the economy may be, as my good friend from Utah says, in a 
Carter-like malaise, Wall Street is in a mushroom boom, and somehow or 
other, the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer, 
and the middle class is slipping into the lower class.
  Something is wrong with that picture, and we can do better as a 
society. I defy anybody to tell me that if you are a mother or father 
and you have one child and you work 8 hours a week at $7.35 an hour 
anywhere in the United States of America, how do you provide adequate 
child care, how do you provide the necessary food for your child, and 
how do you provide the necessary medical services?
  I don't believe that anybody believes that that can be done with such 
a limited amount of resources for a family.
  Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own--
companies moving all over the world to avoid paying taxes in the United 
States of America--I believe that those people need help keeping food 
on the table.
  We find students in our country, young people that work here on 
Capitol Hill, and their brothers and sisters who are graduating from 
elite institutions, online institutions, for-profit institutions, and 
State universities throughout this country are faced with crushing debt 
that keeps them from entering the housing market, keeps them from 
starting a family, or opening a small business.
  I know everybody agrees that women deserve equal pay for equal work, 
but are we doing any of those things here? No. We are discussing a 
waterways issue that isn't going to go anywhere fast, and everybody 
here knows that.
  We are discussing the condemnation of the President's administration 
about a measure that I believe most of us would have done pretty much 
the same thing, about whether or not there was going to be a 30-day 
notice to the House of Representatives.
  No, we are not dealing with the family situations that exist in this 
country as it pertains to poverty, we are not dealing at all with equal 
pay for equal work for women, while the resolution, I repeat, condemns 
President Obama's administration for action to ensure the safe return 
of an American soldier, Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl; yet I know my friends 
on the other side of the aisle celebrate Sergeant Bergdahl's return 
because this resolution even says it right there in the text.
  Here is the quote:

       Now, therefore, be it resolved that the House of 
     Representatives expresses relief that Sergeant Bergdahl has 
     returned safely to the United States.

  I have been taught and all of us here believe, when our military is 
in harm's way, we have had for years--and more recently, we have made 
ourselves gender perfect, but for years, we say we leave no man behind, 
we leave no soldier behind.
  I have been on missions with Republicans and Democrats in this 
particular body in places far away from here, in Korea, where we were 
looking for the remains of American soldiers to bring them home.
  Now, I don't know Bowe Bergdahl, and I certainly don't know his 
family, but as a citizen of this country, I do know this: five old men 
in Guantanamo that were exchanged--and yes, indeed, they were former 
members of organizations that would do us harm, but they are not likely 
to return to the battlefield at their age.
  If so, then old people like me need to be in the war, and probably, 
we wouldn't have so many in the first place. Are their minds going to 
be utilized? That may very well be the case, but I don't think all five 
of them put together were worth as much as one American soldier, Bowe 
Bergdahl.
  Toward that end, I defy anybody to tell me that the Bergdahl family 
and those of us who believe that we should leave no soldier behind are 
not pleased. We send our soldiers into harm's way under the American 
flag, we assure them that they will not be left behind, and President 
Obama and Defense Secretary Hagel made good on that promise.
  Now, I am sorry that you object to how we secured the safe return of 
one of our soldiers, but you don't get to have it both ways. Instead of 
bringing bills to the floor that would help our students, that would 
help those struggling to find jobs, that would help women get the pay 
they deserve, or help small business owners, we get this resolution 
which allows that you can have it both ways. We are glad he is home, 
but we are not glad about how you brought him here.
  Let me say, hurriedly, too that I think President Obama should have 
given the 30 days' notice. I for one know that this matter in the 
intelligence community was debated previously, but I don't think 
anybody believes that we should have left young Mr. Bergdahl behind, 
and what would we be doing if we were standing here talking about he 
died in captivity and we had that slight window of opportunity to bring 
him home.

                              {time}  1245

  Madam Speaker, the plan for the next 2 weeks is to stoke up the base. 
These are message measures. That is all they are. It is just saying 
something so you can go home to your base and argue: Look what we did. 
We condemned the Obama administration. We repealed health care 52 
times.
  You aren't passing laws and you aren't doing anything in a 
cooperative way, institutionally, to allow both sides to have input to 
measures that are needed in this country in order for us to go forward.
  Thursday we will pass a continuing resolution and then we will hear a 
whole lot of sound and fury signifying exactly nothing but nonsense.
  Welcome back, my friends, to Congress.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H7309]]

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I agree with my friend from 
Florida that significant issues need to be addressed on this floor. 
Nothing is more significant than the future of our water rights, which 
does impact the economy, especially for areas of interest where that is 
significant, like agriculture. Because of that, I am glad to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
this rule and the underlying legislation.
  This rule will expand the regulatory jurisdiction of the EPA and 
Corps and, in turn, place more restrictions on landowners who will fall 
under this new umbrella of jurisdiction.
  It has been said many times from others that our side is, at best, 
uncaring about the environment and, at worst, we actually want to make 
the environment terrible. I think what we have got to deal with here is 
the Clean Water Act has provided a good parameter and needs to be 
continued to work because it has a clear direction and a clear 
parameter of how you bring in bodies of water and what is under that 
jurisdiction.
  I think what has happened here and what is a concern that I have 
heard from my constituents especially in north Georgia, and all over 
the country as I have traveled in the past few weeks talking in 
different parts of the country, is about what is the actual role in 
dealing with this waters of the USA and what are we taking jurisdiction 
from.
  This is not just an agricultural issue, Madam Speaker. This is also 
an internal issue for the rural and urban areas, because what is being 
talked about here is taking under consideration navigable waterways 
that have never been thought of in my part of the world, many times, as 
any more than a dry ditch, and they will simply say: We are not dealing 
with dry ditches. In fact, a dry ditch will not be uncovered. However, 
there is a caveat that basically says that when water from that dry 
ditch flows into another waterway, then it could be considered 
navigable. And I don't know about anybody else, Madam Speaker, but in 
my part of the world, I have never seen a ditch run uphill and stop. A 
ditch is running to somewhere.
  This is simply a landgrab that takes land away from owners who could 
use this land in very productive and very carefully thought-out ways in 
their own localities and States, and actually takes it away. This is 
nothing more, frankly, than a landgrab that is based on a desire to put 
political agendas ahead of property owners. That is why I support the 
rule and I will support the underlying bill dealing with the Waters of 
the USA Act.
  I rise also in support of our underlying bill, as well. And we have 
got to understand that the law clearly states the President shall 
notify Congress of any release of Guantanamo Bay detainees. It clearly 
states this. And if changing or breaking that law isn't enough, the 
President released five of the most dangerous detainees held at 
Guantanamo Bay. These Taliban leaders have orchestrated plans to engage 
in hostilities against Americans and in association with al Qaeda. By 
his own admission, there is the possibility that these detainees would 
return to the fight.
  As someone who has been in that fight over the past 10 years and has 
been over there, they do not need any help. They do not need their 
poster heroes coming back to them and giving them support, even though 
they have been off the battlefield. This was wrong.
  My friend from Florida says they are message bills.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an 
additional 1 minute.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, let's be sort of open and 
transparent, which is what the American people want here. There is not 
a bill that hits the floor of this House that is not a message bill. It 
sends a message of the priorities of the Congress. It sends a message 
of the priorities of the people that we represent. Yes, they are 
messaging bills. They are messaging bills for Florida. They are 
messaging bills for Georgia. They are messaging bills for the American 
people. What happened in this instance is the message was loud and 
clear from the executive office, saying: I don't care what the law 
says, I am going to do it anyway.
  That is a bad message, Mr. President, and we need to stop it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would request that Members refrain 
from engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, and I am glad to know that I am personality enough to be 
recognized.
  I understand the passion of my young friend. I also understand an 
awful lot about the waterways in Georgia and Florida and other areas of 
the United States of America, and I appreciate his concern.
  The message bill that I get from these measures allows that, when we 
know something is not going to pass the United States Senate and reach 
a President's desk, then what we are doing in the final analysis is 
just addressing measures so that we can go to the electorate and claim 
that we did something when, in fact, we did not. And it is just that 
simple.
  Many of the measures that we have dealt with over the course of the 
113th Congress have been just that--measures that were designed to 
reach the base of the party. And that is a prerogative, but it is not 
good legislating, and I will stand by that throughout the remainder of 
this debate and any others that I participate in.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments that were made by the 
gentleman from Florida just recently, except that I would take 
exception to the idea that anything that we should bring to this floor 
has to be generated and has to be passed by the Senate.
  I reject the idea that we have to get permission from that body to 
discuss things here on the floor, and if they allow it to go forward, 
then, and only then, would we bring something to the floor, because 
this rule will bring a significant piece of legislation that has to be 
addressed dealing with a potential rule and regulation that deals with 
the waters of the United States that could have enormous consequences--
enormous consequences not only for the economy of this country, but 
also for individuals who use the water and live with that water.
  We have the potential of actually doing something positive by 
stopping a bad rule from going into effect by changing its direction 
and saying that only Congress should be the one that would change those 
concepts. Unfortunately, if we don't do that, we end up hurting people. 
And that is why I want this rule to go forward and I want the 
underlying bill to go forward on water, because we have to stop hurting 
people.
  Let me give you a story of an old farmer in northern Utah I met when 
I was first elected. He was a very kindly gentleman because, in his 
entire ordeal with the Federal Government, I never heard him say an 
unkind word. I, on the other hand, will spend quite a few years in 
purgatory about what I was saying about this situation not only 
verbally but inside my head.
  This gentleman had a problem because he was renting a farm that had 
been a family farm since the 1800s. He was a sugar beet farmer, which, 
parenthetically, I have to note for the record, is a root crop that 
cannot be grown in a wetlands.
  Nonetheless, his farm was watered by irrigation that came from a 
valid right that came from a creek that was diverted by a ditch. Around 
1905, the creek was diverted to a higher level on the farm so that it 
would run there, and the old waterbed became vacant. It became part of 
his sugar beet farm. The water then went through a ditch that irrigated 
that particular area.
  Well, as the farmer for over 80 years, his family was growing sugar 
beets on this creekbed. As the gentleman's siblings left the farm and 
his kids didn't want to take it over, this land became his inheritance 
that would provide for his retirement and an inheritance for his kids 
to pass on.
  It came to the point where it was rezoned by the local community for 
commercial property, and the company gave him a very decent offer to 
try and

[[Page H7310]]

buy his old farm. This was back in 1993. But what it would require is 
to actually fill up the old riverbed and run a pipe underneath the 
property so the water would go from the original point over to the 
neighbors.
  Everything was great until the Army Corps of Engineers came by and 
one Army regulator saw them irrigating the land, which was now used to 
grow hay and not sugar beets, and declared that, since water was now 
pooled in this land, it was a wetland. His recognition was that it was 
a wetland. Now, the fact that no water reached that land if the ditch 
was shut off didn't stop him from saying: This now is a wetland, and I 
get to regulate it under the Clean Water Act as waters of the United 
States.
  So the soil and conservation service came in and conducted tests. 
They drilled 22 holes 8 feet or longer to find out that under the 
topsoil is a level of clay, so no water would ever percolate up onto 
this land. The only way you got water there is if you opened the ditch 
to let water come back. Nonetheless, the Army Corps regulator still 
said: I declare this to be a wetland, and I have jurisdiction over it 
under the Clean Water Act regulations that we have.
  The guy tried to prove his point by putting in a pipe that shows that 
if you actually ran the water past this area, nothing actually pooled 
on this land, to which he was threatened with jail time if he did not 
take the pipe that he owned off the land that he owned from the water 
right that he owned, actually take that away.
  We said: Look, no water actually appears there normally. You go out 
there and you can break a shovel trying to dig up this wetland. How 
long will it take before you recognize the fact that this is not a 
generating wetland?
  The regulator said: Well, you know, we are in a drought cycle. So 
maybe in 7 to 15 years, if no water appears on that land, we will 
actually not declare this a wetland and allow the owner of the land to 
actually sell his property for his retirement and his inheritance.
  My predecessor started this case. I met the man as I was early 
elected. Finally, after 10 years of haggling with the regulators of the 
United States over what is or is not waters of the United States, he 
simply got tired of doing it. He sold his land at one-quarter of the 
value that a neighboring piece of property got for the same size but 
had not been declared as wetlands by a single regulator in the United 
States.
  Now, why is this bill so significant? Because this bill, if not put 
in some kind of parameters and checks, allows the Federal Government to 
hurt people. It gives them the power and authority to hurt people. 
Indeed, the direction that this proposed rule is going would not limit 
the control the agencies have over people's lives. It would 
significantly expand it. That is why it is so significant.
  It is important for Congress to simply say: No, we will no longer 
make rules in this country simply by agencies deciding to expand their 
own control where they have a terrible track record and they actually 
hurt people. We will say: If you are going to expand it, it has got to 
be done by Congress--specifically by Congress--and not by rulemaking 
authority of some agency of the Federal Government.
  That is the significance of this piece of legislation. That is why 
this legislation has to come to the floor. That is why we are not 
wasting time.
  This is not a message issue. This is something where people are being 
harmed by the agencies of the Federal Government, and Congress must 
exert its rightful role in trying to rein in these agencies and trying 
to write the laws so these agencies will not simply abuse people 
because they have the power to abuse people.
  I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but I consider that to be significant. I 
consider that to be our responsibility. If the Senate doesn't want to 
take up that responsibility, if the Senate wants to still abuse people, 
then that can be their prerogative, but it should not limit what we do 
here in the House in speaking out for our constituents.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), my good friend.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my good friend from Florida.
  I listened to my friend from Utah and I heard him make reference to 
fact that he thought he might be spending some time in purgatory. I 
just want him to know that I rise in support of him. I want to help him 
expiate whatever transgressions he has committed and lessen that time 
in purgatory by opposing this rule. I think that is how we ought to 
begin.
  Madam Speaker, here we go again. Should it surprise any of us that 
the most antienvironmental House majority is once again engaging in 
science suppression and denial simply because they don't like the 
findings and where they take us?

                              {time}  1300

  Apparently, the narrative is environmental regulations and rulemaking 
can only be abuse. My friend from Utah used that word. That is the 
choice: ``Do you like being abused or not?'' And I find that not only 
something I have to reject, but I don't think that is, in fact, the 
choice we face at all.
  I think environmental regulation, since we adopted rigorous standards 
in 1970 under the Richard Nixon administration, a Republican President, 
actually has served the American public, by and large, very well, the 
story my friend from Utah tells about the farmer, the sugar beet 
farmer, notwithstanding.
  There may be anecdotes that are compelling and where, indeed, Federal 
regulators abuse their authority. That does not characterize 
rulemaking, and it can't serve as a substitute for protecting, not 
abusing, the American public and its environmental safety.
  We have all grown accustomed to repeated efforts here on the floor to 
gut important environmental safeguards that protect public health.
  All told, my friends on the other side of the aisle have had 
something like 200 votes to block action to address climate change, to 
halt efforts to reduce air and water pollution, to undermine 
protections for public lands, coastal areas, and the ecology. The bill 
that will be before us if this rule passes is more of the same.
  What really should alarm the American public is the House majority's 
effort to suppress and openly reject science. They have done it in 
denying climate change. They have done it in opposing commonsense 
protections against mercury, lead, and arsenic. And today they want to 
throw out the scientific findings of the proposed clean waterways rule 
and prohibit them from being used moving forward.
  Where does that end?
  This know-nothing kind of approach fails the public we are sworn to 
protect and serve and again abandons the model of environmental 
leadership going back to the Republican days of Teddy Roosevelt.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an 
additional 1 minute.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my friend.
  We, as elected officials, have to recognize the valuable role science 
must play in making good public policy--not anecdotes, science. I think 
Neil deGrasse Tyson said it best when he said: ``The good thing about 
science is that it's true whether you believe in it or not.''
  Let's have science inform our public policymaking and our 
legislation. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the 
underlying repeat legislation.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate my friend from Virginia's effort to 
try and save my mortal soul. You failed.
  Whether it is one person or multiple people being abused, abuse is 
wrong and, unfortunately, we have two Supreme Court decisions that have 
said the same thing: the agencies abuse their authority. It is time for 
Congress to step in.
  Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from 
Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, the two bills that this rule brings 
before the House today are critical. I have a resolution here adopted 
by the County Commissioners' Court and Judge of San Augustine County, 
and they state the obvious:

       Be it resolved that San Augustine County strongly opposes 
     the proposed new rule to define waters of the United States 
     in that it increases the need for burdensome and costly

[[Page H7311]]

     permitting requirements, infringes on private property 
     rights, and circumvents the legislative process, thus, the 
     will of the people.
       Be it further resolved that Congress, not Federal agencies, 
     make the laws, and therefore any such change in 
     jurisdictional power of the Federal Government should only 
     occur as a result of the passage of Federal legislation.

  We have a power grab in this administration. It goes on and on. That 
is why it is so critical to take up this bill, to rein in the EPA in 
this effort at an oligarchy, or actually, a monarchy, where we just 
have rules spoken into law, or breathed into law in bureaucratic back 
rooms, taking private property rights away.
  This needs to be dealt with on the floor, and that is what this House 
Republican majority is trying to do.
  Now, when it comes to the Taliban Five, it was very clear from the 
GAO conclusion that ``when DOD failed to notify specified congressional 
committees at least 30 days in advance of its transfer of Guantanamo 
Bay detainees to Qatar, DOD used appropriated funds in violation of 
section 8111 of the law.''
  The law goes on, in part, and says that none of the funds 
appropriated or otherwise made available in the act may be used to 
transfer any individuals detained at the United States Naval Station 
Guantanamo Bay.
  We also find out here, I have seen, today, that the Taliban brothers 
over in Afghanistan and Pakistan, one with the Taliban Five that have 
been released, are saying they support and are brothers with the 
Islamic State that is cutting off the heads of American citizens.
  There is no question that the five murdering and complicit murderers 
that were released back to the Taliban will kill Americans again. They 
will be complicit in killing Americans again even if their hands don't 
actually do that.
  So the question I have, and I will yield to anybody that wants to 
answer it: What do you call somebody who breaks the law to let 
lawbreaking complicit murderers go free? What do you call somebody that 
breaks the law to release murderers?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I am glad to yield to anybody that has an answer.
  Madam Speaker, hearing none, the listener, those who have ears to 
hear, should take note. This is a serious violation. It is not merely 
an administrative mistake. This has and will cost American lives in 
violation of United States law. It is time we reined in the 
lawbreakers.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would advise my colleague 
from Utah that I have no additional speakers, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp) to talk about this 
significant issue.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the time from my colleague 
from Utah, and thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
  I was at the Kansas State Fair this past weekend, and the number one 
issue at the fair was this particular rule coming out of the EPA. I 
stopped by the booth of the Kansas Farm Bureau, I heard it as I walked 
through the streets of the state fair: ``Ditch the rule.'' And that is 
what we are trying to do here, to make certain that EPA regulators 
can't go in the backyards, the farm ponds, the road ditches, every 
place there might be a drop of water.

  This is a radical redefinition from the EPA, unelected, of course, 
trying to redefine the current language of the Clean Water Act. It is 
so radical, Madam Speaker, that a Congress controlled by the other side 
of the aisle even refused to authorize these changes, so the EPA is 
trying to do an end run, as they have done on numerous other accounts, 
trying, again, to rewrite clear law in reference to navigable waters.
  In western Kansas, where I farm, and where I have most of my 
constituents, they are worried. What kind of place have we come to in 
this country in which average ordinary Americans, whom we work for, 
whom the EPA claims to work for, are worried about those regulators?
  The State of Kansas will continue to regulate these issues. The EPA 
does not need additional authority. They have stepped well beyond the 
bounds of the authority we have given them as a Congress.
  I would encourage my colleagues to allow us to proceed, to move 
forward on this rule, and then get to the underlying bill, which is to 
ditch the rule from the EPA.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Utah for his 
leadership on this and many other natural resource issues.
  All across Oregon, farmers and ranchers and other property owners are 
walking around their land wondering what the EPA will regulate under 
the proposed rule to expand its Clean Water Act jurisdiction.
  Ranchers in eastern Oregon wonder about their stock ponds. Wheat 
growers in Columbia Basin worry about an intermittent stream adjacent 
to a field. Fruit growers in Hood River and onion growers in Ontario 
are concerned about their irrigation ditches.
  This proposed rule is based on faulty science. It underestimates the 
tremendous harm it poses to our rural economies, so it is no wonder 
people are concerned.
  At a town hall meeting I had in Grants Pass Saturday morning, three 
of them, 30 people there, this was their number one issue. They are 
involved in real estate. They are very, very upset, very concerned 
about what this could do.
  Further, this regulatory overreach by the EPA blatantly ignores 
Congress' repeated rejection of similar legislative efforts to expand 
jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act.
  Of course, we shouldn't be that surprised. The EPA has tried this 
before. They have been rebuked by the Supreme Court, twice in fact, in 
2001 and 2006.
  The EPA says this new rule was meant to ``clarify'' the scope of the 
Clean Water Act, but I have heard across my district how the vague 
language in this proposal actually creates more uncertainty, not less, 
more red tape, not less. And for our farmers and ranchers, property 
owners, and other Oregonians and others that utilize our water and 
resources, it is a huge threat.
  I have long opposed expansion of this authority, whether through 
legislation or administrative rulemaking. Detrimental action of this 
size and scope should not be pushed by anyone, much less by unelected 
bureaucrats.
  The economies of rural Oregon and other communities around the 
country face enough obstacles already. The broken Federal forest 
policies have strangled our communities, often leaving only agriculture 
to grow jobs and combat unemployment rates that now are still in double 
digits.
  We don't need agencies in Washington erecting more hurdles and 
creating more uncertainty as our farmers and ranchers work to feed the 
world and create jobs in rural communities. It is time to ditch this 
rule.
  So I applaud Mr. Southerland from Florida for writing this bill, and 
I appreciate Chairman Shuster for helping to bring it to the floor. I 
urge its passage to stop yet another regulatory overreach by a Federal 
agency out of control, threatening jobs, threatening private property 
rights, threatening rural communities and our way of life.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) because if anyone can be 
considered an expert on water issues in the United States, it is the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, as well as a 
former member of the Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, there is a clear sense in my district, 
and I believe around the country, that the constant expansion of the 
Federal Government and its bureaucratic red tape is holding back our 
economy.
  One the worst offenders of government is the overreach of the EPA. 
The proposed rule they jointly released

[[Page H7312]]

with the Army Corps attempts to regulate waters that were never 
intended to be covered under the Clean Water Act, and would grant them 
authority over streams on land even when the water beds have been dry, 
in some cases, for hundreds of years. This is a serious threat to both 
private property rights and our economy.
  As the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I have 
worked along with our subcommittee members to try to rein in EPA's 
regulatory overreach.
  The fiscal year 2015 bill prohibits the EPA from changing the 
definition of navigable waters. It is absolutely critical that we 
uphold the Federal-State partnership and prevent the administration 
from finalizing a rule that results in the biggest land grab in the 
history of our country.
  So we need to support this rule to bring this important legislation 
to the floor. And I certainly hope that all the Members will support 
it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. I thank the chairman.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and passage 
of H.R. 5078, the Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach 
Protection Act of 2014.
  This legislation would stop another unlawful regulatory overreach by 
the EPA which, in this case, would expand the definition of the waters 
of the United States. We have all seen that this administration 
believes it can bypass Congress to create laws through executive 
rulemaking, and it is flatout wrong.
  The administration's proposed rule could have damaging effects on 
American property rights, particularly those in Alabama's largest 
economic sector, agriculture. Expanding the role of the EPA, as this 
proposed rule does, to enforce almost all bodies of water, including 
puddles, small ponds, and ditches, will have a profound and, I fear, a 
very negative impact on those who produce our Nation's food and fiber.
  As we approach the 227th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. 
Constitution, I want to remind my colleagues that the Constitution 
created three separate but equal branches of government. The Congress 
writes the laws, not the executive branch.
  This is an issue the Congress of elected officials must address, not 
unelected bureaucrats in Washington. I urge my colleagues to stand for 
common sense and support H.R. 5078.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, does my friend have 
additional speakers?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. The only one to hear from now is I.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. With that, I am prepared to close, and the 
only one he has to hear from is I, so we will speak to each other right 
about now.
  Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I would have thought--and I was at home over the past 
month--that when we came back here that we would be most immediately 
discussing matters pertaining to Iraq and the threat from ISIL and 
Ukraine and the ongoing matters.
  I guess I could twist myself into understanding how the particular 
measure in dealing with the release of prisoners from Guantanamo in 
exchange for the life of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl could have some 
relationship to terrorism at large, but this morning, while I normally 
do not look at television in the early hours, as I am not a fan of 
listening to the talking heads, I have to come here and listen to their 
heads talk.
  Toward that end, I did hear this morning the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives in his daily briefing on the subject of ISIL. All of us 
anticipate tomorrow that President Obama will speak to the issue and 
will give us greater clarity as needed, with reference to the 
administration's approach to dealing with this particular subject.
  I raise it for the reason that I may not get an opportunity to speak 
further on the floor today or the subject may not be at hand in the 
continuing resolution, although it may be, since funding is going to be 
an issue.
  I was distressed to hear when the Speaker was asked--you could not 
hear the queries from four media representatives, but in each instance, 
his statement was that they were waiting for a strategy from the 
administration. I don't think we need to wait for a strategy from the 
administration.
  What I get a little bit tired of is hearing people say that the 
administration needs a strategy--and they do--without having a strategy 
of their own. It would be similar to health care. We went through all 
of that business in trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and we 
didn't have a measure come forward from my friends in the majority 
offering what their plan is.
  It is easy enough for us here on the House of Representatives' floor 
and in our respective offices in air-conditioned conditions to talk 
about very complicated matters around the world and then talk about 
somebody else's needing a strategy when, in fact, we don't have one. 
The Speaker said it--and I heard it eight times--that the President 
needed to have a strategy, but he refused to say that he has a 
strategy.
  We have a responsibility. Senator Kaine, I, and several others did 
request that we be called back into session, so that we could discuss 
this particular matter and give forth the necessary dialogue for 
authorization to be followed.
  Madam Speaker, we are here for 2 weeks, essentially, to finish a 
continuing resolution. The rest of the time, we will spend dealing 
with--and I repeat--messaging bills that won't go anywhere. That is 
what I mean when I say a messaging bill: you know it isn't going to 
pass, and when you know it isn't going to pass, all you are doing, 
whether you consider it significant or not, is offering up a message 
for your base. You are entitled, but let's not kid anybody about what 
we are doing.
  We need to stop calling this Congress the least productive ever 
because that implies that the Congress did something, in some kind of 
way or another, but not enough.
  In reality, this Congress--and this House specifically--far from 
being unproductive, has actively been destructive and obstructive and 
detrimental to the interests of hardworking Americans, repeatedly 
trying to undo the fixes to our broken health care system, quite 
frankly, and offering none; defunding programs that help Americans who 
have fallen on hard times, not even passing measures to extend 
unemployment insurance; refusing to move on immigration reform and then 
casting aspersions when all of us know that our immigration system is 
broken.
  Yet we here in the House of Representatives in this instance--not in 
the Senate, which did pass a bipartisan measure--will not even put an 
immigration measure on the floor. No matter who said that they would do 
something when, I am saying that all you have to do is put it on the 
floor, and I promise you that we could pass immigration reform.
  Yet we refuse to address climate change, and all of the naysayers--I 
spoke to a group that produced energy, along with one of my Republican 
colleagues and one of my Democratic colleagues, during the break. 
During that period of time, I said, ``Do you know something? Something 
is happening here. You can call it science, or you can call it anything 
you want, but something is happening here.''
  Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman was not here earlier, and I am in 
closing, but I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson Lee), if there is something she wishes to add.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman for his courtesy, for his 
time, and for his very eloquent words.
  Very quickly, Madam Speaker, as I indicated in the Rules Committee, 
what poor timing for a resolution, in the midst of a crisis with ISIS, 
to be able to criticize the President for using his constitutional 
powers, and now, in a debate on ISIS, why he isn't doing something. The 
American people are confused. This is the wrong time for the wrong 
resolution. It has no purpose.

[[Page H7313]]

  I am grateful that Sergeant Bergdahl is home. We don't leave our 
soldiers behind. We looked at the heinous killing of our two precious 
journalists. Now, we are asking for the great leadership of this 
administration, which it has been doing, but this resolution is wrong.
  It is misdirected in law, and it is conflicting with law, and we have 
already addressed the question. I am not condemning the administration. 
I believe that this resolution should be pulled off the floor.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule governing debate of 
H. Res. 644, and the underlying resolution.
  I oppose the resolution because at bottom it is nothing more than 
another partisan attack on the President and will make it difficult for 
this body and the Administration to find the common ground and goodwill 
needed to devise and support policies needed to address the real 
threats and challenges facing our country, particularly the threat 
posed by ISIS.
  H. Res. 644, a resolution disapproving of the Obama administration's 
failure to provide Congress with 30 days advance notice before making 
the transfer of certain Guantanamo detainees that secured the release 
of an American soldier, U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
  Sgt. Bergdahl's health was poor and rapidly deteriorating at the time 
his release from captivity was secured by his Commander-in-Chief, 
President Obama, who speaking for the nation, said on June 3, 2014 in 
response to critics of his decision:

       The United States has always had a pretty sacred rule, and 
     that is: we don't leave our men or women in uniform behind. 
     Regardless of the circumstances, we still get an American 
     soldier back if he's held in captivity. Period. Full stop.

  Madam Speaker, the resolution condemns the Obama Administration for 
failing to comply with the 30-day advance notice requirement imposed by 
Section 1034 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2014 (Public Law 113-66; 10 U.S.C. 801 note) and section 8111 of the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 113-76).
  I disagree for several reasons. First, as Defense Secretary Hagel 
testified before the House Armed Services Committee on June 11, 2014, 
``this was not simply a detainee transfer, but a military operation 
with very high risk and a very short window of opportunity that we 
didn't want to jeopardize--both for the sake of Sergeant Bergdahl, and 
our operators in the field who put themselves at great risk to secure 
his return.''
  As a military operation, rather than a routine transfer of detainees, 
the President had the constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief to 
authorize this sensitive military operation for which time was of the 
essence.
  The resolution put forward by the House majority assumes that the 
provisions of Section 1034 of National Defense Authorization Act trump 
the President's constitutional authority under Article II if the two 
are in conflict. This clearly is an erroneous assumption since Article 
VI of the Constitution makes clear that the Constitution is the supreme 
law of the land and prevails in the event of a conflict with federal or 
state law. See, e.g., INS v. CHADHA, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (federal law 
conferring ``legislative veto'' power to be exercised by only House of 
Congress held unconstitutional).
  But even if it were less clear whether a conflict existed between a 
federal law and the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief, as 
Justice Robert Jackson pointed out 62 years ago in the famous ``Steel 
Seizure Case,'' Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 
640 (1952), it does not automatically follow that the President has 
``broken the law'' if he relies upon his claimed constitutional 
authority:

       [B]ecause the President does not enjoy unmentioned powers 
     does not mean that the mentioned ones should be narrowed by a 
     niggardly construction. Some clauses could be made almost 
     unworkable, as well as immutable, by refusal to indulge some 
     latitude of interpretation for changing times. I have 
     heretofore, and do now, give to the enumerated powers the 
     scope and elasticity afforded by what seem to be reasonable, 
     practical implications instead of the rigidity dictated by a 
     doctrinaire textualism.

  Additionally, Madam Speaker, it should be pointed out that the 
constitutionality of Section 1035, the statutory provision which the 
resolution asserts the President has violated, has never been upheld by 
any court, and certainly not upheld against a challenge that it 
impermissibly infringes upon the President's duty as Commander in Chief 
to protect the lives of Americans abroad and to protect U.S. 
servicemembers.
  The Administration strongly objected to the inclusion of Section 1035 
in the National Defense Authorization Act for 2014, on the ground that 
it unwisely and inappropriately interferes with the Executive Branch's 
ability to manage detainees in a time of armed conflict.
  Indeed, the President has informed Congress of his objection to the 
inclusion of these and similar provisions in prior versions of the 
Defense Authorization and Defense Appropriations Act in law, and it is 
interesting to note that they only began to be inserted after President 
Obama assumed the office.
  Madam Speaker, not only is the resolution before us ill-conceived and 
unwise, its timing could not be worse.
  There are only a few days left before the Congress adjourns. We need 
to devote all our time on addressing the real problems facing the 
American people, like raising the minimum wage, making college more 
affordable, passing immigration reform, and responding to the threat to 
the security of the nation and the homeland by ISIS.
  Madam Speaker, the threat posed by ISIS is serious and real and the 
President has reached out to Congress to work with him to develop a 
unified and international response to meet the threat.
  And tomorrow evening, the President will address the nation on the 
nature of the ISIS threat and the actions the United States will take 
to protect the security of the nation and the homeland.
  In the midst of this international crisis, it does not help or 
strengthen our country for the House to be debating a partisan 
resolution condemning the President and Commander-in-Chief.
  In concluding, let me quote again Defense Secretary Hagel:

       The options available to us to recover Sergeant Bergdahl 
     were few, and far from perfect. But they often are in 
     wartime, and especially in a complicated war like we have 
     been fighting in Afghanistan for 13 years. Wars are messy and 
     full of imperfect choices.
       In the decision to rescue Sergeant Bergdahl, we complied 
     with the law, and we did what we believed was in the best 
     interests of our country, our military, and Sergeant 
     Bergdahl.
       The President has constitutional responsibilities and 
     authorities to protect American citizens and members of our 
     armed forces. That's what he did. America does not leave its 
     soldiers behind.
       We made the right decision, and we did it for the right 
     reasons--to bring home one of our people.

  I hold to the beliefs of the role of Congress in any declaration of 
war and the value and purpose of the Administration adhering to the 
rules of consultation with Congress. In this instance the 
administration explained its reasoning and Congress already through 
committee hearings expressed its disagreement. This resolution is 
nothing but political and wholly without purpose and just simply wrong.

  Madam Speaker, we should not waste this precious time remaining on 
matters intended to score political points or to hold the current 
President to standards we never applied to his predecessors.
  I urge all Members to join me in opposing the rule and the underlying 
resolution.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Continuing, Madam Speaker, my friends in the 
majority shut the government down. I didn't think that was helpful. The 
matter of not dealing with immigration reform and climate change, I 
don't think, makes our country better. Their attempts to mold a 
conservative utopia can never work outside the pages of novels.
  This is a House whose leadership judges success not by how it has 
improved the lives of families in this country, but how successful it 
was to thwart the President of the United States. This is a body that 
would rather be trapped in gridlock than to go about the business of 
the country.
  So we will live through these next 2 weeks, and then we will return 
to our districts. What will we tell our constituents that we 
accomplished in the House of Representatives in the 113th Congress? We 
will tell them that we condemned the President for refusing to leave an 
American prisoner of war behind.
  How far are we going to follow an extreme fringe minority down this 
path into poverty? We have got 2 weeks. Once again, House Republicans 
are proving that they would rather put partisan politics and petty 
intrigue first and discredit the President than to govern responsibly 
and address the many challenges facing our Nation.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, in closing, historically, the wise 
use of water has made the desert bloom, but much of my time and some of 
the most egregious problems that I face deal with the overreach of 
executive agencies when it comes to water. To claim that their tactics 
are arbitrary and capricious would be overly generous.

[[Page H7314]]

  The bottom line is the Supreme Court has twice said that the 
executive branch agencies have overreached their authority. Twice there 
was legislation to try to expand that authority, which failed 
miserably, and now what the Supreme Court said they could not do and 
what Congress would not grant them to do, the agencies are trying to 
accomplish by creating a rule to give them powers that they ought not 
to have.
  That--I am sorry, Madam Speaker--is simply wrong. The reason it is 
wrong is that it hurts people. People trying to live their lives find 
themselves frustrated by executive agency overreach.
  That is why Congress must indeed pass not only this resolution and 
rule, but also the underlying bill, and it must move forward to make 
sure that Congress controls these issues in the future, not an 
executive branch agency. I have to reiterate that this rule is fair, 
and the underlying legislation is appropriate.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  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.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229, 
nays 179, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 484]

                               YEAS--229

     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
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     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
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     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
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     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
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     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
     Sinema
     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--179

     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Bucshon
     Cassidy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Dingell
     Gosar
     Jones
     King (IA)
     Lee (CA)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Meng
     Miller, Gary
     Nadler
     Nunnelee
     Poe (TX)
     Rush
     Sewell (AL)
     Tierney
     Velazquez

                              {time}  1352

  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida, Messrs. MORAN, BARROW, and COHEN changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 484 I 
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yes.''
  Mr. BUCSHON. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 484, had I been present, 
I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 484, I was not 
present to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________