[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.''
____________________