Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 23 (Wednesday, February 11, 2015)

[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 11, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H937-H946]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1330
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 1, KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE APPROVAL ACT,
AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 16, 2015,
THROUGH FEBRUARY 23, 2015

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 100 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 100

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 1) to approve
the Keystone XL Pipeline. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided among and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce and the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; and
(2) one motion to commit.

[[Page H938]]

Sec. 2. On any legislative day during the period from
February 16, 2015, through February 23, 2015--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 3. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. 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
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to talk about House Resolution 100,
which provides a closed rule for consideration of S. 1, the Keystone XL
Pipeline Approval Act. Folks might find that a little unusual to talk
about a bill that begins with the title S. 1, but there is a new day in
Washington, D.C., that excites me, and it is that the ``open for
business'' sign is there on the Senate side. It is not a function of
Republicans doing this or Democrats doing that. It is a function of the
process working the way that it should.
The first vote I took on the Keystone pipeline, Mr. Speaker, was back
in 2011 when I was first elected to Congress. It passed the House by a
wide bipartisan margin. It was never given the time of day in the
United States Senate.
As we come here today, we are not just talking about approval of the
Keystone XL pipeline in S. 1. We are talking about the inclusion of
another bill that has passed time and time again, the Better Buildings
Act. Mr. McKinley from West Virginia has language that would promote
energy conservation across this land, a bill that has passed time and
time again in this House but has never been passed by the Senate.
It is an opportunity here today, Mr. Speaker. It is an opportunity to
do those things that the American people sent us here to do: bipartisan
votes, commonsense legislation for the first time in a long time, Mr.
Speaker, and what I hope will be the beginning of a long trend here in
the U.S. House of Representatives.
As you listened to the Clerk read, Mr. Speaker, you heard that there
are a lot of different points in this bill. It is not just a bill for
consideration of S. 1. It is also a bill so that when the House is not
in session in D.C. next week, the Speaker will have the ability to call
the House back into session to continue to conduct business because the
business must continue to go on. I am glad the Rules Committee was able
to include that provision as well.
Seven years ago is when the permit process started on the Keystone XL
pipeline, Mr. Speaker. Since seven years ago, longer than it took to
build the Hoover Dam, we have been trying to approve a small section of
pipeline. I say ``trying to approve'' somewhat loosely. I think if we
had been committed to getting it done, we could have absolutely gotten
it done. Again, it is a commonsense piece of legislation that decides
rather than building a pipeline across Canada to carry oil to Canadian
refineries, which will provide lots of jobs for Canadians, if our
partner to the north is willing, we will build that pipeline through
America to deliver that oil to American refineries to create Americans
jobs.
This is not a bill that mandates that, Mr. Speaker. The marketplace
is going to control this construction decision. The marketplace is
going to control where the oil is refined, and the marketplace is going
to control whether or not the oil comes out of the ground to begin
with.
Too often, I think we have been treating the Keystone XL pipeline
approval process as if it were an environmental decision. There are
those who wish the United States would reduce its reliance on fossil
fuels. I am one of those. I don't think there is any advantage to be
had by putting all your eggs in one energy basket. I am in favor of an
all-of-the-above strategy that makes sure that America's energy
security--North America's energy security--is based on multiple--
multiple--avenues for energy production. But we do not get to decide in
this Chamber whether or not the Canadians bring oil out of the ground.
We only get to decide whether or not, once that oil comes out of the
ground, it is moved with U.S. jobs and U.S. construction to U.S.
refineries, or whether or not those jobs go elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, time and time again folks come to the floor and they
say: Where are the jobs? Where is the jobs legislation? I am thrilled
to be carrying this rule for the Rules Committee today, Mr. Speaker,
because this is one of those jobs bills--bipartisan, common sense. And
if we pass it here in the House today, Mr. Speaker, headed to the
President's desk, that signature will change the lives of those
hardworking Americans looking for jobs today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Woodall), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, you are not permitted to sing in the House of
Representatives, and I shall not do that; but I will take this
opportunity to do as my colleagues in the Rules Committee did
yesterday, a little bit in advance of my friend's birthday. Today is
the birthday of my friend, Mr. Woodall. And as one who has had many
more birthdays than he, I hope he has as many birthdays as me and many,
many more. Happy birthday to you, Rob.
As my friends are already aware, the President has already said that
he is going to veto this measure. We introduced last night the
statement of the administration with reference thereto. That means that
the likelihood that this bill will become law is highly improbable at
best. I wish I was standing here under different circumstances. I wish
that the House were about to vote on something it knows that the
President will sign into law. I wish we were working on something that
would actually help our economic recovery instead of hamstringing it.
I listened to my friend very attentively when he pointed out that the
marketplace will dictate three different circumstances. One that he did
not allude to that I will is that the marketplace will dictate where
the oil, once refined if the Keystone pipeline is approved, the
marketplace will dictate out there in that neverland where we don't
participate, where the oil will go. Therefore, I want to make it very
clear that I do not believe that it means that there will be cheaper
prices in the United States of America.

I am standing here because House leadership would rather pass purely
symbolic measures than work with the President. And I recognize that,
as my friend has pointed out, that a long time has passed with
reference to this measure. I did a little added research to determine
what would Enbridge and the other companies up in Canada do in case
there was no Keystone pipeline. In addition to rail, they also have
plans to send oil east and west and plans to send it north. And, I
might add, for all that same period of time, the resistance inside
Canada, based on a number of circumstances having to do with the Beluga
whale, all of the way back to farmers, having to do with
environmentalists, the same as in our country, the same arguments,
whether East, West, or North in Canada, have been going on while our
debate has been going on here with reference to the Keystone pipeline.
The 113th Congress is going to be remembered, and I believe everyone
now understands, as the least productive Congress ever. That is the one
that we just came out of. However, it seems that the current Congress
is going to take its best shot at accomplishing even less if we stay on
the course that we are on. Virtually every bill that has come before
the Rules Committee the House already passed in the 113th Congress.
Most have no more hope of becoming law now than the last time around.
We have yet to see one really new idea from the Republican leadership
of this body, which has shown zero interest in actually doing its job,
in my opinion.
How many more times are we going to have to vote to repeal so-called
ObamaCare, a program that now unquestionably is improving the lives of
some hardworking Americans. Instead, we are voting on bills handpicked
for

[[Page H939]]

their ability to demonstrate the Republicans' message of the week,
regardless of chance of enactment, regardless of whether it is a good
idea, regardless of whether it is something that will help everyday
Americans. And because these bills are handpicked for specific
purposes, most have come to the floor under a closed rule, which means
that Members cannot change the measure in any way, not even to make it
better and not even with bipartisan solutions.
A good example is so far this body has voted on 15 rules during this
114th Congress, of which 8 of those 15 have been closed. The closed
rules we will pass this week will be numbers 9, 10, and 11. Listen, my
friends, on this same measure last week and before, the United States
Senate, operating under regular order that is now majority-led by
Republicans, considered on this very same measure 18 amendments, six
that were approved, and some of them that were offered were bipartisan.
Among the reasons I believe that the Senate majority leader
determined that he would operate differently than the previous majority
leader is so as to give his membership, smaller than ours, of course,
an opportunity to participate in the process. All the more reason, I
believe, that we should have open rules. We have new Members, too, as
do they. We have Members that have ideas that may be bipartisan with
reference to support and opposition to the Keystone pipeline. But no,
we continue to operate under closed rules.
Do you know how many rules were closed at this same point in the last
Congress? The most closed rules ever, six. The gavel might as well be a
brick wall.
Furthermore, much of the legislation this Congress has voted on has
evaded regular order, escaping the review, hearings, and markups that
ensure appropriate deliberation and consideration. Those of us on the
Rules Committee have a wonderful opportunity. We are becoming sort of
like the place of first resort for legislation. It isn't coming from
hearings. The American public doesn't get an opportunity to see the
various committees. It just comes up to the Rules Committee and we
massage it back and forth about what our views are, but it does not
come under regular order.

{time} 1345

Just like the original version of this bill, the House is considering
the Senate version of this bill without a hearing or a markup.
These are not just academic procedural disagreements. It matters
because Members are not able to represent their constituents. It
matters because good ideas are being deliberately kept hidden.
I have been here a long time. I have seen some pretty great
Congresses under Republican and Democratic control, and I have seen
some pretty lousy ones.
But the last few years, this body has been like a hamster on a wheel,
spinning and spinning, but never getting anywhere. You don't have to
look farther than a couple of amendments the Senate made to this bill
to see my friends spinning their wheels.
Climate change is real. Because a few Senators decided to get cute in
parsing a few words, it is in the bill. We are going to vote on it. And
then what?
Just yesterday, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that the
United States Department of Agriculture is making more than $280
million available for rural agricultural producers and small business
owners to apply for resources to purchase and install renewable energy
systems or make energy efficiency improvements.
Once more, those funds were made available in the 2014 farm bill,
which shows what Congress can accomplish when we work together. I might
add, because farmers in this country have experienced a 37 percent
reduction--and I, along with others, represent many of those rural
areas--I am delighted that we were able to do that in the farm bill,
and I am pleased that Secretary Vilsack made his announcement.
The Senate also included an amendment that finds that Congress
should--as opposed to shall--require oil companies to pay an excise tax
to fund oil spill cleanups.
While I appreciate this expression, the amendment effectively does
nothing to mandate contributions to the oil liability trust fund. I
would invite my colleagues on the other side to explain that. Tell us
why it is that these oil companies should not be required to contribute
in a mandatory manner to the oil liability trust fund. Instead, what is
happening is we create the illusion that oil companies will actually be
accountable in the event of a spill.
Alternatively, simply closing the tax loophole that allows oil and
gas companies to deduct the cost of cleaning up oil spills would
discourage oil spills and save hardworking American taxpayers an
average of $1.3 billion per year.
The American people were led to believe that changing control of the
Senate would lead to an end of this gridlock. But sadly, this has not
been the case.
My friends are not going to be able to, like the hamster, spin their
wheels continuously. Even the hamster gets tired. And sooner or later,
when that hamster gets tired of the nonsense of spinning going nowhere,
he either gets off or he falls off.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to thank my friend for his well wishes and to tell him I am sympathetic
to the hamster wheel scenario that he describes.
I don't particularly enjoy these opening weeks of a new Congress, Mr.
Speaker, because committees haven't gotten organized, legislation
hasn't started to flow, and it puts the committee in the very
unfortunate situation of having to act as the legislator, as the
authorizer, to begin moving pieces of legislation to the floor.
That is unfortunate. But that is not the situation we are talking
about today, Mr. Speaker. What we are talking about today is a bill
that not only passed the floor of the House but went to the Senate, a
bill that not just went to the Senate but went through that wonderful
open debate process that my friend from Florida described and has now
come back to us today.
Four years we have been trying to move this bill forward, Mr.
Speaker. It is a closed rule here today so that we can act on the same
legislation that the Senate has passed, so we can send this bill to the
President's desk, so we can get off the hamster wheel of futility that
my friend from Florida describes.
I am optimistic, Mr. Speaker. But it doesn't happen by itself. It
happens with years and years of work.
So with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), whose advocacy and leadership have made
having this bill on the floor today possible.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank my friends on the other side as well on the Rules Committee. I
have been before them twice now on this topic and have enjoyed it
immensely.
I might say as a word of encouragement with regard to the hamster
wheel, because I share the same concerns, but I am also encouraged by
the fact that we are actually passing the Senate bill today. As many
times as we have tried to pass this, we have never been able to get it
to the President's desk. That will happen soon. That is progress, and I
think we ought to celebrate the progress of that.
With regard to being the least productive Congress, veto threats
before voting on important things sort of leads to gridlock, I suppose.
But I don't think that should stop us from doing our job and forwarding
the ideas that our constituents have asked for. My constituents want
the Keystone XL pipeline built.
What we are doing today, as was teed up by the gentleman from
Georgia, is, of course, talking about a Senate bill. We passed H.R. 3
when I introduced it the first week in the House, a closed rule, as the
gentleman from Florida said, a simple bill. We have passed similar
bills in previous Congresses, well vetted. And my colleague from North
Dakota, Senator Hoeven, who is really the originator of this whole
concept, introduced S. 1.
The other reason I think we should be encouraged is not only did the
Senate have an open process, they voted on 47--at least 47--amendments.
That is more than three times as many amendments on S. 1 as the Senate
voted on in all of the bills last year. That is progress. That is not
hamsters on the wheel.

[[Page H940]]

I want to take a few minutes to describe the amendments that came
over from the Senate and why I suggest to leadership--and I am pleased
leadership accepted--that we just simply accept the Senate amendments
and move this forward rather than going to conference, although I think
that would have been a good exercise for a lot of us as well.
But there were a couple of amendments introduced that deal with
energy efficiency programs, as the gentleman from Georgia pointed out,
dealing with federally leased and owned property, as well as schools.
It sets up programs and processes and gives authority to the Department
of Energy to sort of coordinate energy efficiency issues in programs
and projects, which I think is a noble goal.
There is that sense of the Senate that climate change is real and not
a hoax. Now, we can throw that out as sort of meaningless. But the
reality is that a statement like that passed 98-1 by the Senate is a
pretty strong statement. I think the President ought to view that as
currency--as currency. He argues that Keystone, because oil sands are
somehow supposed to emit more greenhouse gas emissions than other
production--I am here to tell you it is not true, and I will point out
the very specific facts on that.

But in the spirit of compromise, he has this statement that I think
provides currency for him to go to Paris next December and say: This is
the sense of the Congress of the United States. I hope he views it as a
positive.
Senator Mikulski has that amendment--which the gentleman from Florida
spoke to--the sense of the Senate that all forms of unrefined and
unprocessed petroleum should be subject to the nominal per-barrel
excise tax associated with the spill fund.
While it says it is the sense of the Senate and it isn't put into
law, I think it is important to note that we are talking about a tax,
an excise tax that is placed on domestic crude, for sure, not placed
on--if you can imagine this now--bitumen. Bitumen is the product that
comes from the oil sands, and because bitumen is not in the Tax Code,
it is not subject to the excise tax. That should be corrected. We
should do that in the proper order, probably through the Ways and Means
Committee.
That said, it is important to note that TransCanada is 100 percent
responsible for spills and cleaning them up. I sited the first Keystone
pipeline through the State of North Dakota, 600 landowners' land. They
had some issues in the early going at one of the pumping stations. They
did clean it up. It didn't contaminate water or the surrounding area.
All of the tools worked properly.
My point is that they are responsible, and that is as per each
State's law. This line will be permitted in each State, and they have
to be responsible for cleanup.
Another one, Senator Cornyn had an amendment: Land or interest in
land for the pipeline may only be acquired through constitutionally
appropriate means. That only makes sense. Maybe it doesn't need to be
stated, but it is important to state, similar to the Barrasso amendment
that clarifies that treaties with Indian tribes must remain in effect.
That should be obvious as well, but it doesn't help to restate those
important points.
I think that these amendments are important amendments, they are good
amendments, and they help broaden the appeal of the bill.
I want to take this map down and I want to speak to just a few of the
merits of the Keystone pipeline bill because I know them very well, the
extraordinary benefits of Keystone XL.
Employment opportunities--Mr. Speaker, according to the U.S. State
Department, 42,000 jobs will be supported by the construction. I can
assure you, having been on the construction site of the original
Keystone bill, it is true. These are real jobs. These are good jobs.
Some people refer to them as temporary jobs. Referring to a pipeline
project as temporary is like referring to a wind farm as only temporary
construction.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 5
minutes.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the generosity of the gentleman
from Georgia. Thank you.
But all construction jobs are temporary until the construction is
done and you move on to the next project. There are thousands of miles
of pipeline under the ground in the United States. The steel workers,
the truck drivers, the backhoe operators, the welders, and the local
hotels and restaurants and retailers benefit tremendously. This is the
make-or-break in many cases for some of these smaller businesses that
benefit from the construction of this dynamic economy.
Energy security--we can't overstate energy security. We are talking
about displacing Venezuelan oil. We are talking about displacing Middle
East oil. In fact, the 830,000 barrels per day that will run through
the Keystone pipeline into U.S. refineries is equal to about 50 percent
of what we import from the Middle East. That is security.
When we talk about energy independence, that is one thing. Security
means that we have our security in our own hands, and we are not
subject to bad guys from other parts of the world; that, in fact, we
are part of the security solution. And it relates directly to national
security, I might add.
Enhanced safety--I was a pipeline regulator for years. There is no
safer way to move crude oil than by a pipeline. It is the most
efficient and it is the safest by far.
We have seen some of the things that happened when we cluttered our
highways. In fact, the Department of Transportation in North Dakota
anticipates the saving of three to six fatalities on the roads in North
Dakota if this pipeline is built because, remember, it is not all
Canadian oil sands. About a quarter of this capacity is reserved for
Bakken crude oil as well. That removes a lot of trucks from our roads.
That is much safer for the traveling public.
Trains--another issue we have. We have a lot of trains. This would
represent 10 trains a week that could be hauling food to hungry people
rather than oil to the marketplace.
Environmental protection--we hear a lot about the environment and the
issues pertaining to it, and rightfully so. The good news is that after
6\1/2\ years of study, this is the most environmentally studied
pipeline and the most sophisticated and highest-tech pipeline in the
history of the world.
In fact, moving oil by rail actually emits 1.8 times more
CO2 into the air than moving it by pipeline. Moving it by
truck emits 2.9 times more CO2 than does moving it by
pipeline. Moving it by barge to China, where it will be refined with
far lower environmental standards than the United States, that is
priceless.
Exchange with Canada--I don't think we should understate the
importance of our relationship. Our number one trading partner, $2
billion a day of goods and services travels between our two countries--
our top trading partner and best friend, Canada.
If we were doing this to Canadians and to Canadian companies, or if
they were doing this to us, I can't imagine how we would respond. I
have worked closely with the Embassy. I have worked closely with the
new Premier, Premier Jim Prentice, from Alberta, who, by the way, just
won the election this last fall on the pro-environmental stewardship
platform.
Exchange with Canada is so important. We need to restore and care for
that important relationship. I would rather enhance that relationship,
quite frankly--and it gets right back to this energy security issue--
than be fighting over oil or fighting to protect the transportation of
oil in other places.

{time} 1400

At the end of the day, with everything else that has gone on and with
these other important issues, to me, the final thing is this, and it is
what I would say to the President, Mr. Speaker:
You have asked for bipartisan bills. You have asked for us to work
together. Here we have a bipartisan, bicameral solution, one that the
American public supports in a big way, one that would create jobs, one
that would lift up the middle class, Mr. President.
I would just beg, Mr. Speaker, that the President would reconsider
his veto threat on this important bipartisan jobs bill and sign it when
it goes to his desk so that we can get people back to work, can become
less dependent on foreign sources of oil from across the sea, and can
become more interdependent with our neighbors in Canada.

[[Page H941]]

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to tell both of
us the remaining amount of time on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 18 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Georgia has 15 minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Here we are, only 17 days before the Republican Homeland Security
shutdown and with just 6 legislative days left until the Department of
Homeland Security shuts down on February 28, closing down many of the
crucial Department of Homeland Security operations that have kept our
country safe from terrorist attacks.
If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment
to the rule to bring up a clean version of the Department of Homeland
Security funding bill. With such serious consequences, it is time to
put politics aside in order to strengthen our homeland and protect
American families.
To discuss our proposal, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), my good friend, the ranking
member of the Appropriations Committee.
Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge this House to
immediately take up and pass a clean funding bill for the Department of
Homeland Security. By defeating the previous question on the pending
rule, we can immediately make in order a clean Homeland Security bill
and stop the theatrics over the President's use of executive orders.
Madam Speaker, as of today, we are 134 days into what should have
been the start of this fiscal year. The situation this House has caused
is completely unacceptable. We simply cannot wait one more day to do
the right thing, the responsible thing, and fund these critical
agencies tasked with protecting this Nation.
As the ranking minority member of the Appropriations Committee, I was
involved in the bipartisan, bicameral negotiations on the omnibus
spending bill that passed the House and the Senate and was signed by
the President last December. That package could have contained all 12
annual spending bills because all 12 were negotiated in conference, and
every one of them was ready to go.
An unfortunate decision was made by the leadership of this body to
omit the Homeland Security bill, not because there were outstanding
issues or continued disputes. That bill, negotiated by my good friend
from North Carolina (Mr. Price), was stripped from the omnibus because
some in this body were upset by the President's executive order on
immigration. They even admitted the President's actions had little to
do with the Homeland Security appropriations bill. Yet that was the
choice that was made on how to proceed, so the Homeland Security
appropriations bill was forced to operate under a continuing resolution
instead of having a full-year bill. Ironically, it meant Customs and
Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement--two of the
agencies tasked with defending our borders and enforcing our
immigration laws--had to do without the nearly $1 billion increase they
would have gotten under the full-year bill.
Delaying the full-year bill, my colleagues: limits the Department's
ability to advance the Secretary's Unity of Effort initiative, designed
to improve coordination in our security missions; limits the ability of
the Secretary to move ahead with the Southern Border and Approaches
Campaign; creates uncertainty regarding ICE's capacity to detain and
deport dangerous criminals; complicates the Department's ability to
deal with another influx of unaccompanied children at our border
stations; delays the implementation of the new security upgrades at the
White House and of the hiring increases of the U.S. Secret Service; and
delays terrorism preparedness and response grants for State and local
public safety personnel.
I understand that many of my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle feel quite strongly about the President's use of executive orders
on immigration policy, but I am compelled to remind those colleagues
that they have every tool at their disposal to pass legislation
changing the President's proposal.
This stunt, my friends, has gone on too long. It is time to admit
these immigration policy decisions have little to nothing to do with
the appropriations process. The Homeland Security bill should never
have been held hostage in this fight.
Madam Speaker, just this week, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh
Johnson issued a sobering statement about the consequences of operating
under a continuing resolution. Quite simply, ``Border security is not
free.''
I couldn't agree more.
Madam Speaker, I would like to enter Secretary Johnson's statement in
the Record.

[Department of Homeland Security Press Release, Feb. 10, 2015]

Statement by Secretary Jeh C. Johnson on the Consequences to Border
Security Without a DHS Appropriations Bill

I continue to stress the need for a DHS appropriations bill
for FY 2015, unburdened by politically charged amendments
that attempt to defund our executive actions on immigration
reform. The President has made plain that he will veto a bill
that includes such language.
At present, the Department of Homeland Security is
operating on a continuing resolution that expires on February
27. As long as this Department is funded by a continuing
resolution, there are a whole series of activities vital to
homeland security and public safety that cannot be
undertaken. The public must be aware of the real impacts to
homeland security as long as DHS is funded by a continuing
resolution, or, still worse, if Congress were to permit our
funding to lapse altogether and the Department of Homeland
Security goes into government shutdown.
Last week I issued a statement noting the impact on DHS's
grant-making activity to states, local and tribal governments
as long as we are on a CR. Basically, we are prevented from
funding all new non-disaster assistance grants.
The public must also be aware of the impact on our ability
to secure the borders as long as we operate on a CR. As part
of our executive actions to reform the immigration system,
the President and I have emphasized increased border
security. Added border security is also a key component of
the President's FY 2015 and FY 2016 budget submissions to
Congress. But, as long as this Department is on a CR, and not
a full-year appropriations bill, our ability to strengthen
border security, to include maintaining the resources we put
in place to respond to the surge in illegal migration into
south Texas last summer, is constrained.
Here are some concrete examples of things we need to do,
but cannot, without a full-year DHS appropriations bill for
FY 2015:
Important investments in border security technology cannot
be initiated, including additional resources to upgrade
obsolete remote video surveillance systems and mobile video
surveillance systems in the Rio Grande Valley;
Investments to increase our ability to analyze geospatial
intelligence cannot be made. This is a capability critical to
enhancing situational awareness of illegal border crossings
and prioritizing frontline personnel and capability
deployments;
Non-intrusive inspection technology at ports of entry
cannot be enhanced. This technology reduces inspection times
while facilitating trade and travel, and is necessary to
detect illegal goods and materials, such as potential nuclear
and radiological threats;
Critical enhancements to the CBP National Targeting
Center's operational and analytical systems cannot be made.
These support our daily operations against transnational
criminal organizations by identifying terrorist and criminal
threats attempting to cross our borders via land, air and
sea; and
More aggressive investigations by ICE of transnational
criminal organizations responsible for human smuggling and
trafficking, narcotics smuggling, and cybercrime involving
child exploitation and intellectual property rights
violations.
Border security is not free. The men and women of DHS need
a partner in Congress to fund their efforts. Time is running
out. I urge Congress to act responsibly and pass a clean
appropriations bill for this Department.
For more information, visit www.dhs.gov.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). The time of the
gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS. I yield the gentlewoman another 30 seconds.
Mrs. LOWEY. If my colleagues are finally serious about these programs
and priorities, I urge them to join with me today. Defeat the previous
question so that my colleague, Mr. Hastings, can offer an amendment to
provide a clean, full-year appropriations bill for the Department of
Homeland Security.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I was just reading an article from the AP, which is doing a fact
check on whether or not a conversation about

[[Page H942]]

the Department of Homeland Security is a fair and honest conversation.
They say, in reality, most people will see little change if the
Department's flow is halted, and some of the warnings of doom are as
exaggerated as they are striking. They go on to list word after word of
folks announcing those warnings.
What is striking to me, Madam Speaker, is that, if we had the same
open process going on in the Senate right now that the gentleman from
Florida described--the great process that brought S. 1 to the floor--we
would be bringing the Department of Homeland Security bill to the floor
of the Senate as well; but, as you know, the Senate minority leader
today is filibustering any effort to even bring this conversation to
the floor, going back to the hamster wheel my friend from Florida
described earlier.
How often do we hear that? How often do we hear about the procedural
stunts that get in the way of doing the business that every single one
of us knows our constituents sent us here to do?
This bill, though, is one about which we can be proud. This bill,
though, is one that gets to the heart of what our constituents have
asked us to do. This bill, though, has been done right from the start
in a bipartisan way, in an open way, and it can make a difference for
people tomorrow if we pass it on the floor of the House today and send
it on to the President.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, my colleague just said to me, as my
friend was looking at the Associated Press' fact check, that it would
seem that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security would
know a little bit more about what he is doing than would a reporter. I
would hope that that is the case.
I am very pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), my classmate and good friend.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to
defeat the previous question on the rule, to amend it, and to make in
order the House consideration of the clean, bipartisan Homeland
Security Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015, negotiated in good
faith last November.
Today is February 11, 134 days into fiscal year 2015. With only 17
days remaining until the current CR expires, the House is scheduled to
be in session only 6 more days. Yet this Congress is no closer than it
was last December to carrying out its basic responsibility to
appropriately fund the Department of Homeland Security, whose primary
mission is to protect us from terrorist attacks.
Secretary Johnson has warned us over and over again that the
Republican leadership's refusal to allow a vote on the clean,
bipartisan funding bill is threatening the national security of our
country. He tells us that, without a full-year budget, he is unable to
move forward on key homeland security priorities, including new
investments in border security technology; more aggressive
investigations by ICE, related to drug smuggling, human smuggling, and
trafficking; preparedness for responding to surges in illegal
migration; security upgrades at the White House complex; and grants for
State and local terrorism prevention and response capabilities; and the
list goes on.
I am truly perplexed as to what it will take to convince the
Republican leadership to do the right thing. Surely, before taking
appropriate action, we don't need to experience attacks like those in
Paris.
If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe the President
has overreached, the answer is not to jeopardize our national security
by delaying the 2015 funding for Homeland Security. If Republicans wish
to circumscribe the President's discretion on immigration policy, the
Constitution provides a clear path of action that runs through the
authorizing committees, not through an appropriations bill.
Last week, the Senate definitively demonstrated three times that
there are insufficient votes to bring up the DHS funding bill with the
House-passed poison pill riders. Even if the Senate were to take up the
bill, it would be vulnerable to a budget point of order because the
poison pill riders have been scored by the Congressional Budget Office
as having a net cost of $7.5 billion.
Republicans control majorities in both the House and the Senate, and
they control the agenda. By allowing a vote on the clean, full-year,
bipartisan DHS funding bill, the leadership today has the opportunity
to make clear that the Nation's security takes priority over unrelated
policy debates over immigration enforcement strategy. This bill
addresses the most pressing needs of the Department of Homeland
Security's to protect our country from harm. It would pass both Houses
and would be signed by the President today, and we should send it to
him.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question to make in order
the consideration of a clean Homeland Security funding bill.

{time} 1415

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to take the
gentleman from Florida's advice and yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Harris), an expert on the appropriations process.
Mr. HARRIS. I want to thank the floor leader for yielding the time.
Madam Speaker, there is no amendment necessary to this rule. Three
weeks ago, we passed a fully funded Department of Homeland Security.
Except for the President's illegal actions, the entire rest of the
Department is funded: TSA, the Coast Guard; all these critical things.
Let's review how Congress really works. The House takes an action--we
did 3 weeks ago--and then the Senate is supposed to take an action.
What action did they take? Harry Reid and the Democrats have blocked
three efforts to even debate the bill. They know if they didn't take
that action, the Senate could debate the bill and they could strike
those amendments. The Democrats are free to strike the amendments that
we put on the bill that limit the President's illegal actions with
regards to amnesty. They know they can.
Madam Speaker, let's be honest. The last time the President shut down
the government, 87 percent of DHS was fully funded. TSA was there. The
Coast Guard was on the job. Yeah, there were some administrators who
didn't go to work for a few days, but let me tell you, after the
unemployment problem we have had in this country, there are a lot of
people outside the Federal Government who don't go to work for a lot
more days. That is not what the American people expect from us.
The fact is that this bill is sitting over in the Senate. The
President said 22 times he didn't have the authority to do what he did
on amnesty. All we did is just made it quite clear the House position
is he doesn't have the authority.
So, we are not going to spend the money. We take article I seriously.
We have the authority over spending, and if we think the President is
taking an illegal action, we have the authority to withhold that
funding--and that is what we did, fund the entire Department except for
that one illegal activity the President is doing in violation of
article I of the Constitution. It gives us the authority over the law.
The President said he can't rewrite the law 22 times--and he did. We
are just going to keep him to his word. He can't rewrite the law.
The previous speaker said you can't do authorizations on
appropriations. That is nonsense. We do it all the time. We can correct
the President's mistake in the bill. We did. That is the bottom line.
The Democrat leadership in the Senate has blocked even debate on the
bill. What kind of country are we when one party, the party that is
really holding this bill hostage in the Senate--not the Republicans; it
is the Democrats--refuses to even debate the bill? I am shocked.
Americans expect the Senate to debate. That is what we are asking
them to do. That is what they are not doing. I don't understand that.
Why don't they want the Homeland Security bill to be funded? I don't
get it.
Madam Speaker, I will close by saying we just need to move the motion
on the previous question, pass the rule, and build the Keystone
pipeline.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to refrain
from engaging in personalities toward the President.

[[Page H943]]

Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I would also take the opportunity to
encourage the previous speaker to read Jefferson's Manual because some
of the things he talked about on rules are not, at least, my
understanding. So I accept his expertise on certain matters, but his
ideas about what we can do in the minority strike me as strange.
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey).
Mr. VEASEY. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the
time.
Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the rule. I am rising today
against the rule. And although I believe that a pipeline is absolutely
the most safest and environmentally conscious way that we can transport
natural resources through North America--and natural resources, for
that matter, that are going to be developed. It doesn't matter what the
carrier ultimately is; these are resources that will be developed. But
the underlying rule, much like the prior rules we have seen on any of
the Keystone pipeline votes, does not allow for Member debate. It
doesn't. It doesn't allow for Member debate, and that is not how we can
best move forward. Only by having an open discussion can this body
fully engage in creating sound public policy.
I want to give you an example of what I am talking about. I offered
an amendment in the Rules Committee which said that if the Keystone
pipeline is built, we would maximize the amount of American jobs that
are created or sustained in this process.
My amendment would ensure that the iron, steel, and manufactured
goods made in the construction of the Keystone pipeline and facilities
are made here in America. If we are going to build the pipeline in
America, let's make the materials in America. That will create more
jobs. That will give people more opportunity.
There has been much discussion about how we have lost so many
manufacturing jobs in this country, about how we have lost ground in
that area, about how people can't take care of their families because
these opportunities are no longer here. If we are going to build this
pipeline, let's give people the opportunity to go back to work, roll up
their sleeves, and let's build these in America. There is no reason to
have materials made in China to build this pipeline.
Therefore, I believe that if Republicans want to follow a jobs-
focused agenda, the amendment that I am offering will make sure that we
keep Americans working and not workers in China.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to say to the gentleman from Texas, my heart sits where his hearts
sits--with American workers and American products. We build the best
products in the world. There is absolutely no reason not to purchase
the best products in the world to build something particularly as
important as our pipeline.
The box we find ourselves in is that, candidly, some of us--in fact,
I dare say all of us--are a little surprised the Senate was even able
to move through this bill. I have not seen the Senate move like it has
moved in this open process, in this expedient process. In the entire 4
years I have served in this institution, I have never seen it happen
before.
It is a good bill. I don't take issue with the work the Senate did.
It looks substantially similar to what we passed here in the House. We
may never get a chance to send this bill to the desk.
Again, we are just trying to debate a small part of the
appropriations process and the Senate right now can't even move into
debate because of filibusters in the Senate.
So I say to my friend from Texas, I am absolutely sympathetic to his
amendment. I would like to have an opportunity to debate more
amendments on the floor of this House.
I think back to my early days here 4 years ago. We had a 3\1/2\-day
what I call festival of democracy. We came down here and worked night
and day on H.R. 1 until every Member had a chance to be heard. That is
the way it ought to be done. And I regret that in this situation we did
not have a chance to make the gentleman's amendment in order because it
was a good amendment and it would absolutely be worthy of debate and
consideration here on the floor of the House.
Madam Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings)
has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Woodall) has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I would also advise my friend from Georgia that I have no further
speakers. I don't know whether my friend from Georgia does or not.
Mr. WOODALL. I also have no further speakers.
Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I earlier asked several questions. I believe Mr. Cramer addressed one
of them. I have yet another that I did not ask, and I am not asking him
to respond.
I might add, I think those of us here in the body--and I said this to
him when he was in the Rules Committee--I do believe Mr. Cramer from
North Dakota really does have a comprehensive understanding of this
matter.
While I disagreed with him about many matters, I do believe that he
points out something that we need to pay attention to, in that there
are already, without Keystone, a lot of pipelines in the United States
of America, and in the period of time of this recent debate, there have
been a lot of pipelines that have had spills and have caused major
damage. Without getting into them, three of them have really been
substantial. Shutoff valves become important.
We haven't discussed many of the things regarding the technology that
has improved over time, but I keep hearing my colleagues talk about
this being a jobs measure. Indisputably, if there were to be a pipeline
built, there would be jobs.
I agree with my friends on the other side that most, if not all,
construction jobs are temporary jobs, and there are those in labor
unions who are very supportive of this matter for the reason that it
would create jobs.
But I have in mind something that many of us have advocated for
years. The greatest reminder occurred the night before last right here
close to us, in Maryland, when a piece of concrete from a big, old
bridge fell off and, fortunately, when I saw the lady on television,
her car was damaged and she was frightened out of her wits. But she is
alive and was unharmed. That is concrete off of a bridge.
There are thousands of bridges in this country, and all of us know
that we could be about the business of dealing with our infrastructure,
which would create a whole lot of jobs and not leave us to these
ideological debates.
I might add, if we approve this matter, in order for people to
litigate, they have to come here to the Federal Circuit in the District
of Columbia. That does not make sense to me, and it precludes those who
would want to bring actions from being able to do so. This legislation
allows that as the only vehicle.
I might add, the litigation isn't concluded yet in many of the places
where there may continue to be concerns--in South Dakota, where Mr.
Cramer is close to--Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico,
Texas, and certainly in Nebraska.
In the midst of trying to combat all of the problems that we have
here in this country, attaching conditions and ultimatums to
fundamental legislation is not the way to go about addressing the
policy that was earlier raised and that I will raise in the previous
question with reference to immigration.
If my friends really want to debate immigration issues, they should
work with us and the President to reach a comprehensive and bipartisan
consensus. Perpetuating the Department of Homeland Security stalemate
is as dangerous to our country's security as it is corrosive to our
democratic process.
Please, let's stop the pointless politicking. Let's end these games
of chicken with our national security. Pass a clean DHS funding bill,
and let's get back to the business of the American people.

[[Page H944]]

I didn't know that this was in the drawer in front of me. It kind of
looks like a hamster. The wheel just keeps on spinning. But my little
friend here is still with us and has, in many respects, like my
friends, stopped, by virtue of his being inanimate, his spinning. And
that is what the Republicans need to do: stop spinning like the hamster
on the wheel and get on with the business of the United States of
America.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and
defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I
yield back the balance of my time.

General Leave

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous materials.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I may be an unnatural optimist, but I believe these 2 years that we
are about to have in this institution are going to be the finest that I
have seen in my lifetime. The reason I believe that is exactly because
we are responding to the plea that my friend from Florida has made to
get on about the business of the people.
It is hard being in the minority around here. It is hard. My friends
on the other side of the aisle may feel like they are in the minority
today. For the last 4 years, we had the Speakership in this Chamber,
but I sure felt like I was in the minority.

{time} 1430

The Senate, held by the party on the other side; the White House, the
party on the other side--and things got to be about party, day in and
day out, and it wore on me, wore on me.
That is not why I ran for Congress, Madam Speaker. It is not why you
ran for Congress. It is not why any of my colleagues here ran for
Congress. They ran for Congress to get about the business of the
people.
We are 1 month and a week into this new session of Congress, and the
Senate has already managed to do what it hasn't been able to do for 4
years, and that is hold an open debate and move legislation where
Members had a chance to have their voice heard.
We have that measure in front of us today. The only thing standing
between us and considering that measure, Madam Speaker, is passing this
rule. I am excited about it. I am excited about it.
I am proud of what is in this underlying legislation. I am proud of
the process that produced this legislation. I am proud of the
leadership of folks like Mr. Cramer who moved it through the House
first.
Now, this is the Senate version, but this is the process that folks
have worked in tandem. This is a process that folks back home can be
proud of.
Now, that is not to say every Member of this Chamber supports this
legislation, Madam Speaker. They don't, and they have myriad reasons
for choosing not to support this legislation, but the majority is going
to work its will.
I don't mean the majority, the Republican majority. I mean the
majority--let's have a show of hands, see where people stand--and
Republicans and Democrats are going to stand together and say, I
support these American jobs. They are going to say, I support our
largest trading partner, which is Canada. They are going to say, I
support finality on a process that began 7 years ago.
I long for the debate we will have on this House floor, and I hope
the gentleman from Florida and I get to manage the rule when we bring
the surface transportation bill to the floor of this House because
America needs that surface transportation bill. We need to build
America, Madam Speaker.
What does it say when getting approval for this pipeline consumed
more time than the entire construction of the Hoover Dam? Have we so
hamstrung ourselves with bureaucracy that we can no longer do those
great building projects as a Nation?
I hope that the answer is no, but if the answer is yes, we have the
ability in this Chamber to change it to no. We are a society that does
great, great things. We do have responsibilities that are great, great
responsibilities, and we cannot accomplish those in a partisan way. We
cannot accomplish those without partnership and cooperation.
For the next 2 years, Madam Speaker, we have an opportunity to move
bills out of a Republican-led Congress that get signed by a Democratic-
led White House. That is kind of the way the Founding Fathers
envisioned it, and I am pleased to be a small part of it today.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 100 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
861) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland
Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and
for other purposes. 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 Appropriations. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 861.
____

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

[[Page H945]]

to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule
reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to
amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2)
Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the motion for
the previous question on a resolution reported from the
Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the
opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper
amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate
thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this
15-minute vote on the previous question will be followed by 5-minute
votes on adoption of House Resolution 100, if ordered, and approval of
the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242,
nays 183, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 71]

YEAS--242

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emmer
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NAYS--183

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu (CA)
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle (PA)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
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)
Lawrence
Levin
Lewis
Lieu (CA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz

Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--7

Cartwright
Duckworth
Fitzpatrick
Lee
Roe (TN)
Ruiz
Sanchez, Loretta

{time} 1500

Mrs. CAPPS and Mr. DeSAULNIER changed their votes from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Messrs. JONES and COFFMAN changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 248,
noes 177, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 72]

AYES--248

[[Page H946]]

Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOES--177

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu (CA)
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle (PA)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
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)
Lawrence
Levin
Lewis
Lieu (CA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--7

Cartwright
Duckworth
Fitzpatrick
Lee
Roe (TN)
Ruiz
Sanchez, Loretta

{time} 1508

Ms. JACKSON LEE changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
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.

____________________