[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 37 (Wednesday, March 4, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H1596-H1603]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PASSENGER RAIL REFORM AND INVESTMENT ACT OF 2015
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Perlmutter
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hultgren). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 114-36.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 503. QUIET ZONE REPORT.
Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Comptroller General shall transmit to Congress a
report evaluating the rule issued by the Federal Railroad
Administration on the use of locomotive horn at rail
crossings. Such report shall--
(1) evaluate the effectiveness of the rule in reducing
accidents and fatalities at rail crossings;
(2) evaluate the effectiveness of the rule in establishing
quiet zones;
(3) identify any barriers to the establishment of quiet
zones; and
(4) estimate the costs associated with their establishment.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 134, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to H.R. 749 requires the
Government Accountability Office, the GAO, to conduct a study and
submit a report to Congress evaluating the effectiveness of the Federal
Railroad Administration's 2005 rule on the use of locomotive horns at
rail crossings. We were just talking about rail crossings.
After 10 years of being in effect, I believe it is fair we ask the
FRA to update and modernize the train horn regulation, allowing
flexibility for new technologies and innovations that may become
available.
The basic premise behind the rule has not changed: to promote public
safety by requiring train operators to sound horns at certain decibel
levels while passing through railway crossings to alert motorists and
pedestrians.
While the rule currently allows municipalities to apply for ``quiet
zone'' status, I am concerned the current requirements for obtaining a
quiet zone
[[Page H1597]]
waiver are far too rigid, cost prohibitive, and time consuming.
Achieving quiet zone status can take years of work and cost millions of
dollars.
By requiring the GAO to study the train horn rule, I am confident the
FRA can craft an updated rule striking a balance between public safety
and providing communities flexibility to establish quiet zones.
I hope the GAO study will provide insight on how the FRA can update
train horn requirements when communities invest in certain safety
enhancements and measures installed at crossings, including barriers,
warning signals, and other features to keep the public safe.
Last year, I attended an event for the unveiling of a new quiet zone
in one of the cities in my district, Commerce City, Colorado, which was
established after significant investment from the city. I want to thank
the FRA and State officials for working with Commerce City. But we need
to review how long and how costly these quiet zone applications can be.
Just last week, another city in my district, Arvada, announced four
planned railway crossing improvements to establish crossing zones.
According to a story published in The Denver Post last week, the city
has been in discussions with the FRA for more than 5 years on getting
the quiet zones approved. I include the text of The Denver Post article
for the Record.
Railroad Quiet Zones Will Silence Train Horns at Four Arvada Crossings
Arvada residents living along the Union Pacific Railroad
tracks could sleep a little easier next year with the
establishment of ``quiet zones'' at four crossings.
City Council recently approved a $1.8 million agreement
with Union Pacific that will see barriers and gates added
where the tracks intersect at Lamar and Carr Streets, Olde
Wadsworth Boulevard and West 66th Avenue.
Arvada communications manager Maria Vanderkolk said the
city has been in discussions for more than five years with
the Federal Railroad Administration, the Public Utilities
Commission and Union Pacific on getting the quiet zones
approved.
``It's expensive--we got a couple approved elsewhere about
10 years ago, then we had issues with these four and they're
right in the heart of the city,'' Vanderkolk said. ``We told
the neighborhood this would be done last year. . . various
and sundry delays means this has literally taken years to get
approved.''
Train horns are sounded in compliance with federal rules
and regulations, which require a train to blast its horn for
15 to 20 seconds at any public crossing. Under terms of the
agreement, the city will install four-quadrant gate systems--
or gates with four arms, in addition to flashing lights and
ringing bells, at the four crossings. These type of gates
make it difficult for motorists to drive around.
Once they're built, the trains will no longer have to blast
their horns and the Union Pacific train will run quietly
through the entire length of Arvada.
``Without a quiet zone, people see a train coming and think
they may be able to beat it and skirt around the gate,''
Vanderkolk said. 'With a quiet zone, you construct a barrier
so the car physically can't get around it.''
Michael Smith has lived blocks from the railroad tracks in
his home near 64th Avenue and Field Street for almost 35
years. He said over the years, the trains have become more
frequent and the horns so prevalent that at times they have
kept him and family members from getting a good night's
sleep.
Things got so bad they considered moving, but decided to
stay once it became clear the city was working to address the
problem.
``We really appreciate the work city staff has done on
getting this completed,'' Smith said. ``It's a lot of money,
but it will be great for the community.''
The city is coordinating with the railroad on getting the
crossings built by the end of 2015, said Chris Sveum, a city
civil engineer.
She added: ``There's no guarantee the trains still won't
have to sound their horns from time to time, but this should
cut down the rate by 95 percent.''
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman, it is time for Congress to analyze the
effectiveness of the train horn rule and work with FRA to improve the
ability of our communities all across the country to continue investing
in railway crossing safety.
A more flexible rule could enable these communities to craft
solutions reducing noise, promoting long-term economic growth, and, at
the same time, ensuring the safety of residents.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask for an ``aye'' vote on this amendment,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I
support the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, the past couple of weeks have seen some
startling accidents at grade crossings. Having an independent entity
review the train horn rule would be a good start to helping ensure such
accidents don't occur in the future.
The train horn and quiet zone rule was one that took the Federal
Railroad Administration almost 10 years to complete. It was finalized
10 years ago in 2005. So this would be a good time to revisit the
effectiveness.
Furthermore, with the rise in freight traffic on previously lower
capacity routes, some communities are seeing more trains travel through
their towns, which are used to lower traffic.
Looking at crossings, the creation of quiet zones, and their costs
will be a helpful tool for small communities across the country. I
recommend support for the gentleman from Colorado's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the
Transportation Committee and all of the Members for working with me on
this amendment. I would ask for an ``aye'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. McClintock
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in House Report 114-36.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 2, line 3, through page 3, line 10, strike section
101.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 134, the gentleman
from California (Mr. McClintock) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment removes the taxpayer
subsidies and requires Amtrak to operate as a business, as we were
promised it would when it was established back in 1971.
Every year, as Amtrak's operating losses have mounted, Congress has
dutifully shoveled more money at it to keep it afloat. Every year, its
congressional supporters have promised reforms to bring these losses
under control. And every year, these promises have fallen flat.
This year, we are told, well, look at all the new reforms that we are
building into this. In 5 years, they will have their act together.
Well, how many times have we heard this promise? Let me cite just a
few.
Back in 1997, facing mounting criticism, the Amtrak Reform and
Accountability Act required Amtrak to operate without any Federal
operating assistance after 2002.
When that didn't happen, in 2008, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) attempted to eliminate only its most expensive route from
reauthorization. That year, the gentleman from Minnesota, Jim Oberstar,
called any reduction in subsidies a ``preemptive strike'' and promised
that the bill was chock-full of reforms that would soon solve Amtrak's
problems.
Well, when that didn't happen, in 2014, the gentleman from Georgia,
Paul Broun, proposed eliminating subsidies, just as my amendment does.
At the time, the gentleman from Iowa, Tom Latham, said: ``I concede
that Amtrak could be more efficient. However, it has made significant
improvements in this area recently and is moving in the right
direction.''
``Moving in the right direction.''
This year, taxpayers will subsidize Amtrak in the amount of about
$1.4 billion. The bill before us authorizes $1.4 billion for next year.
Put another way, we will shell out $45 every time a passenger steps
aboard an Amtrak train. That is $45 per passenger, per trip, and direct
losses billed to taxpayers. That is up from $32 of loss per passenger 6
years ago.
Despite endless promises, things are not getting better. Amtrak's
apologists
[[Page H1598]]
claim this is a 40 percent reduction in authorized funding. In fact,
Amtrak received $1.4 billion in 2015, the same as this bill authorizes
in 2016.
Outside experts have reported that over the next 10 years,
subsidizing Amtrak will cost taxpayers $49 billion. Let me put that in
family-sized numbers. The average American family will have to cough up
$392 from its taxes over the next 10 years just to cover Amtrak's
losses.
What does that $392 out of a family's taxes pay for? Well, among
other things, Amtrak's food and beverage employees, who are paid an
average of $106,000 a year to provide a service that lost over $800
million over the past decade just selling snacks on Amtrak trains.
Are we at least seeing any improvements in service? Not hardly.
Amtrak's monthly on-time performance has significantly declined.
Bigger losses, declining service--that is not moving in the right
direction. That was a false promise then, just like all of the other
false promises we have heard since 1971.
In last year's appropriations debate, Amtrak apologists warned that
cutting off the subsidies would ``eliminate an entire transportation
option.'' It does no such thing.
Amtrak claims that it is running a profit on a heavily traveled
Northeast corridor. Nothing in my amendment would change this. Anything
Amtrak makes on these profitable routes, Amtrak keeps.
With this amendment, Amtrak would be perfectly free to continue to
operate and expand its Northeast corridor from its own profits and to
subsidize its other money-losing operations to the extent that its
profits would cover them.
However, this amendment would end the practice of forcing American
taxpayers to underwrite another 5 years of broken promises.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Byrne). The gentlewoman from Florida is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as I stand up here today, I know
that if the gentleman from Minnesota, Jim Oberstar, was here, the
transportation guru, he would be standing up for Amtrak. So I am going
to stand up in place of Mr. Oberstar.
And let's start out with, this amendment would kill Amtrak. It would
shut it down. It would strand millions of passengers, disrupt commuter
operations, add to our already congested roads and airports, eliminate
over 20,000 jobs nationwide, and jeopardize local economies and
business that depend on Amtrak's service.
Amtrak provides the majority of all intercity passenger rail service
in the United States, with more States and localities across America
turning to passenger rail to meet the transportation needs of our
citizens.
Amtrak reduces congestion and improves our energy independence. One
full passenger train can take up to 250 to 350 cars off the road.
Passenger rail also consumes less energy than both automobiles and
commercial airlines.
With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Shuster), the chairman of the committee.
Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentlewoman from Florida.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
I certainly appreciate the gentleman's concern. He has been a true
deficit hawk. One of the great challenges we face in America is
reducing the deficit.
There has been a longstanding debate in this Congress about passenger
rail in this country. I, for one, believe it is necessary. I think that
what we have in this bill--and I have watched for the past 40 years
also some of these broken promises.
I am committed to, and I think we committed in this bill to putting
forth reforms, streamlining, empowering the States, which I think is a
huge step in the right direction, giving States the ability to be at
the table, to invest their dollars to force Amtrak to do things
differently.
So, again, throughout the bill, there are these reforms. I feel
confident that, in the way the country is going, with population growth
and with these corridors expanding, we have to have passenger rail to
move people around some of the most densely populated corridors.
So I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I would simply respond to the ridership
claims that it has no impact on congestion because the ridership is
infinitesimal. You have to compare Amtrak's 31 million trips to the 650
million airline trips per year. According to Cato, the average American
logs about 15,000 miles per year by car, 1,800 miles by plane, and just
20 miles on Amtrak.
If Amtrak is making a profit, it can use those profits any way it
wants--to continue its operations, to subsidize its losing routes. But
it should not be tapping further into taxpayers' pockets.
{time} 1400
Voters have elected the biggest Republican majority in the House
since 1928, with a resounding mandate to stop wasting money. Today this
government is spending and taxing record amounts of families' earnings,
and well above the 40-year average as a percentage of our economy. If
we can't bring ourselves to cut this, one of the most outrageous
subsidies in the entire budget, voters will have every right to ask
what good are we?
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. How much time do I have remaining, Mr.
Chairman?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) to close.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, let's just back up for a minute. What the
gentleman would do, he says, well, they could keep operating the
Northeast corridor. Well, that is good, because three-quarters of the
people going from Washington, D.C., to New York are choosing rail over
air, and I don't know where we would fit that many more airplanes in
the already congested skies. But that is actually, unfortunately, not
true because of the other routes, particularly across-country and
Western routes, the obligations under their contracts to their existing
employees who would lose their jobs, other obligations they would have
for abandoned lines and stations, and all that would total billions of
dollars.
So even if they theoretically--and you would have to do further
changes in the law rather than just taking away the money--could
operate the Northeast corridor, they couldn't because of these other
obligations. Any money would have to go there, and they would be
immediately bankrupt because it would exceed their revenues.
So that is one, perhaps, unintended effect of the gentleman's
amendment, because he does seem very sympathetic to the fact that
three-quarters of the people going between Washington, D.C., and New
York are choosing rail over air, and it is a growing percentage. He
doesn't seem to be cognizant of the fact that ridership is up 14
percent--that is actually 4 million people in 1 year--that revenue is
up, and the operating losses have been cut in half. They are down 48
percent.
Mr. Chairman, there is no passenger rail system that operates like
Amtrak across a continent as large as ours without assistance from the
government. Now, if you want to disconnect the country--as I recounted
earlier, on 9/11, I had a Federal official who had to get back for
meetings in the Northwest. He took the train. We have an aging society.
I tell you, when I don't have to get on an airplane every week and I
can take a little more time to get somewhere--and I think a lot of
other people, as they are aging, would like to avoid the hassles of air
travel. I believe ridership will continue to grow.
In the Northwest we are in a cooperative arrangement--and I pointed
that out earlier--with Amtrak, where they operate our train, an Acela
train which was purchased, and the ridership is up to about 1 million
people a year. And it is growing quickly to avoid the already overly
congested I-5 between Eugene and Seattle and avoid the hour and a half
you are going to spend somewhere 60, 70 miles south of Seattle sitting
in your car. So he would deprive Americans of all this for ideology--
not for good reasons, but for ideology.
[[Page H1599]]
We should be going the other way. We should be investing more and
building out a robust, 21st century rail system like every other
industrial country in the world. Why do we have to be Third World?
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Lipinski
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in House Report 114-36.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 48, line 14, after ``procedures'' insert ``for
passengers, including passengers using or transporting
nonmotorized transportation such as wheelchairs and
bicycles''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 134, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, before I discuss my amendment, I would
like to thank Chairman Shuster, Chairman Denham, Ranking Member
DeFazio, Ranking Member Capuano, and former Subcommittee Ranking Member
Brown for all their hard work and for bringing this bipartisan
legislation to the floor so early this year.
Mr. Chairman, this bill shows us what Congress can do when we work
together to build consensus, and yes, compromise--compromise--to get
things done to improve our Nation's transportation infrastructure.
This bill makes much-needed reforms to Amtrak's business model and
the RRIF loan program, which I hope will unlock a potential financing
source for the CREATE rail modernization program in northeastern
Illinois and help commuter rail agencies make important improvements,
such as installing positive train control.
I am pleased the bill contains provisions extending Buy America
requirements to RRIF projects. I have been mentioning this need since
2009, and I am glad to see that we are codifying these requirements to
ensure that this $35 billion loan program is investing our dollars in
American materials and American jobs.
My amendment today is a small but important addition to this bill. It
sharpens the directive in section 211 that requires Amtrak's inspector
general to conduct a review of Amtrak's boarding procedures. Section
211 is a good step towards improving the experience of Amtrak riders
and the efficiency of Amtrak's operations.
This amendment builds on this provision by clarifying that the Amtrak
IG should consider the boarding needs of passengers that use mobility
devices, including all forms of wheelchairs, as well as passengers with
items such as bicycles. This will make sure that the IG's report
considers the needs of all its riders, guarantees that Amtrak will
focus on complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and
harnesses a potential revenue stream from bicyclists and other users of
nonmotorized transport.
Right now, Amtrak uses patchwork procedures that can make it
difficult for an individual using a wheelchair or traveling with a bike
to get on and off a train. The Amtrak inspector general issued a report
in August of last year that found that only 10 percent of Amtrak
stations are fully ADA compliant, which demonstrates the need to not
only look at each station's infrastructure, but how each station gets
passengers from station to platform to train. We need to make sure that
Amtrak is serving all of its customers to the best of its abilities and
in accordance with the law.
Mr. Chairman, similar difficulties exist for other forms of
transportation, such as bicycles. Only 38 percent of Amtrak lines
provide baggage service for bicycles, while only 18 percent of lines
even allow for roll-on bicycle service that are complemented by ad hoc
policies at many of the stations on these lines. Mobility is important
to reducing congestion, and if we improve the boarding process, we
improve quality of service and help encourage ridership.
This amendment is supported by Easter Seals, People for Bikes, the
United Spinal Association, the League of American Bicyclists, AARP, the
Rails to Trails Conservancy, the National Disabilities Rights Network,
Transportation for America, and the Adventure Cycling Association.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment even though I do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. This amendment simply clarifies that when the Amtrak
inspector general looks at ways to improve Amtrak's boarding procedures
at major stations that it consider passengers using wheelchairs and
other nonmotorized transportation. I know this is near and dear to the
hearts of Mr. Lipinski's constituents, so, again, I rise in support.
At this time, I would also like to take the opportunity, which I
neglected to do, to thank the staff for their work over the past year.
We rely on them to make a lot of this come together. Their hard work
and dedication deserves recognition and appreciation.
Specifically, I would like to thank on the rail subcommittee Mike
Friedberg, Fred Miller, David Connolly, and Kristin Alcalde; on the
Democratic side, Jennifer Homendy and Rachel Carr for their hard work;
our communications team Jim Billimoria, Justin Harclerode, Michael
Marinaccio--I think I finally got it right, and he has left the
committee--Keith Hall; from our front office Jennifer Hall, Beth
Spivey, Collin McCune, Clare Doherty, Isabelle Beegle-Levin, Denny
Wirtz, and Mary Mitchell Todd. To all of them, I thank them for their
very, very hard work on helping to put this bill together.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy
in permitting me to speak on this, and I would like to express my
appreciation to the chair, ranking member, ranking members of the
subcommittee and chair. This is, I think, an example of Congress doing
what it should do. I appreciate it. As an alumni member of the T and I
Committee, I am proud to see this move forward.
Rail corridors are absolutely critical in terms of being able to
promote mobility. As the chair of the Bike Caucus, I am particularly
interested in this amendment.
The committee ended last Congress on a high note with WRRDA, and
being able to start this Congress on a high note with a really
thoughtful approach to Amtrak, moving this forward, I think, is a
signal that there is no other committee that has more potential to do
more this Congress to help rebuild and renew the economy and get
America moving. This is a tremendous signal about what is possible.
I lend my congratulations to the committee, Chairman Shuster, Ranking
Member DeFazio, Ranking Member Brown, and look forward to working with
you on more excitement as we move forward.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I want to thank, again, Chairman Shuster for his work and Ranking
[[Page H1600]]
Member DeFazio. This is what we need to be doing is coming together and
working these things out. There is so much that America needs done,
especially when it comes to transportation infrastructure.
I want to thank the chairman for his great work in leading this
committee. We have a lot of other issues to work on, other forms of
transportation, but this is a good example of what we can do by working
together.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment and support
the bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
The amendment was agreed to.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on the amendment printed in House Report 114-36 on
which further proceedings were postponed:
Amendment No. 6 by Mr. McClintock of California.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. McClintock
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. McClintock) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 147,
noes 272, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 110]
AYES--147
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Babin
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blum
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Buck
Burgess
Byrne
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Collins (GA)
Conaway
Culberson
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
King (IA)
Knight
Labrador
Lamborn
Latta
Loudermilk
Love
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Massie
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mooney (WV)
Mulvaney
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pearce
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Roskam
Ross
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stewart
Stutzman
Thornberry
Valadao
Walker
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Woodall
Yoder
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zinke
NOES--272
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Barletta
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bost
Boustany
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibbs
Gibson
Graham
Granger
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Hardy
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Joyce
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
LaMalfa
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Moore
Moulton
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Newhouse
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pitts
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schock
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Stefanik
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Trott
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Womack
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--13
Amodei
Black
Blackburn
Crawford
Fincher
Hinojosa
Long
Roe (TN)
Rush
Smith (WA)
Speier
Waters, Maxine
Yoho
{time} 1440
Messrs. McNERNEY, WALBERG, WITTMAN, TAKANO, GALLEGO, ZELDIN,
FORTENBERRY, RICHMOND, and LYNCH changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Messrs. GUTHRIE, GOHMERT, RICE of South Carolina, Mrs. NOEM, Messrs.
JOLLY, YOUNG of Indiana, MESSER, and Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Stewart) having assumed the chair, Mr. Byrne, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 749) to
reauthorize Federal support for passenger rail programs, and for other
purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 134, he reported the bill
back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the
Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
{time} 1445
Motion to Recommit
Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to
recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Yes, I am in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
[[Page H1601]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York moves to recommit the
bill H.R. 749 to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure with instructions to report the same back to
the House forthwith, with the following amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 503. AMTRAK SECURITY.
(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Secretary for the use of the Amtrak Police Department
$150,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2019 for
acquisition of canines, explosive detection, surveillance and
communication equipment, baggage screening, counter-terrorism
and critical infrastructure protection, and other security
needs determined appropriate by the Secretary.
(b) Veterans Protect Passengers Hiring Initiative.--Not
later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
Amtrak shall implement a veterans hiring initiative in the
Amtrak Police Department, which shall include veterans with
experience working with military working dogs.
Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York (during the reading). Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the
motion in the interest of time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I offer this
amendment today as the final amendment to the bill.
I am proud of the bipartisan work that the committee has done, and I
want to commend the chairman, Mr. Shuster, also Messrs. DeFazio,
Denham, and Capuano, and all the staff for the work that went into this
legislation. This is a good bill, and it makes key investments in our
rail infrastructure and in rail safety. I want to personally thank the
chairman for all of his hard work on this bill and for, in particular,
including the provisions that I authored on positive train control and
grade crossings, the need for which has been so dramatically
demonstrated by the terrible accidents in places like Valhalla and
Spuyten Duyvil, New York, and recently in Oxnard, California.
However, we can make this bill better. My amendment will not kill the
bill nor send it back to committee. If adopted, it would proceed
immediately to final passage.
My amendment simply provides $150 million annually to Amtrak's police
department to address critical security needs. Amtrak's security force
is not large, but its task is monumental, protecting nearly 32 million
passengers who use Amtrak every year. My amendment gives those security
officials the resources they need to prevent and defend against
terrorist attacks. From additional canine units to explosive detection
equipment, we need to make sure that Amtrak's police officers,
nationwide, have the capability to protect passengers.
The amendment also requires Amtrak to implement a veterans hiring
initiative specifically designed to hire veterans with experience
working with military dogs, canine units. Amtrak has a long history of
providing career opportunities to veterans, as well as Active Duty
military members, but under current law is not required to do so. It is
not required to seek out veterans for open positions. With more than
200,000 Active Duty servicemembers transitioning to civilian life, we
can, today, guarantee that Amtrak will seek out veterans for new hires.
In the last 10 years, more than 800 attacks have occurred worldwide
against passenger and commuter rail systems, killing thousands. Many of
us remember the terrifying images of the terrorist attacks in Madrid
and London. In Mumbai, three separate attacks in the last 15 years have
killed hundreds of people.
All of us here in both parties understand the real dangers our
country is facing. I have no doubt that one of the greatest threats we
face is to our U.S. rail system. Subways and commuter systems, in
particular, remain a top threat. Information taken from Osama bin
Laden's very compound in Pakistan indicated that al Qaeda was
considering attacks on a number of U.S. rail systems.
Our intelligence and law enforcement officials have foiled several
threats in just recent years. In 2009, an Afghan-born jihadist plotted
to bomb New York subways with devices very similar to those used in the
2005 London attacks. And in 2011, two al Qaeda-supported terrorists
were arrested after plotting to bomb and derail a train between Toronto
and New York's Penn Station.
At a time with heightened security and growing threats like ISIL, we
are asking Amtrak's police force to do more with less. Amtrak reports
that security funding overall has decreased by more than 50 percent
since 2011. We need to reverse this trend to protect the security of
our national passenger rail system.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense
amendment to provide the necessary funding to ensure the safety and
security of Amtrak passengers and rail commuters.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, this amendment will do nothing more than
kill the bill. H.R. 749 is a bipartisan bill with heavy, heavy reforms
that will improve and advance passenger rail in this country, including
security. We have taken that into consideration. I agree that security
is important, but we cover the cost of security activities in this
bill.
Both sides of the aisle have worked very hard over the past 2 years
to craft a bill that I believe is exactly the kind of legislation that
the American people want. It is a reform bill. It is commonsense
reforms. There has never been an Amtrak bill with these kinds of
reforms in it empowering the States.
This bill empowers the States, those 19 States that have 21 supported
Amtrak lines. They will have a seat at the table to make investments to
improve passenger rail in those 19 States. It is going to give the
commission on the Northeast corridor more say, more teeth to be able to
force Amtrak to do things. It is going to keep the profits of the
Northeast corridor in the Northeast corridor for that heavily congested
area of the country that needs to have passenger rail and, along the
way, learn the lessons of when we make those investments, how we can go
out to the other corridors around this country that are going to need
passenger rail.
This bill is not perfect; Amtrak is not perfect. But I truly believe
this bill sets Amtrak on the course to reform itself and to improve
itself so in the future they can move towards going away from the
subsidy by the Federal Government. That is my goal: to get an Amtrak
that doesn't have any Federal subsidies.
So these reforms were put in place. They are strong reforms. As I
said, we have never had an Amtrak bill like this before, and it was
done on a bipartisan basis. I think we can be proud of it. The Congress
can be proud of this bill, and the American people can be proud that we
are doing something.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this motion.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I demand a
recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184,
noes 232, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 111]
AYES--184
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
[[Page H1602]]
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
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
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
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
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--232
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
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
Cramer
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
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
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
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, Tom
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
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--16
Amodei
Barton
Black
Blackburn
Costello (PA)
Crawford
Fincher
Guthrie
Hinojosa
Long
Roe (TN)
Rush
Smith (WA)
Speier
Waters, Maxine
Yoho
{time} 1457
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 111,
meeting with constituents in office on matters involving Ukraine. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 316,
nays 101, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 112]
YEAS--316
Abraham
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bost
Boustany
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chaffetz
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Goodlatte
Graham
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guinta
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Hurt (VA)
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jolly
Joyce
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
LaMalfa
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Matsui
McCarthy
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Mica
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Moore
Moulton
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Newhouse
Nolan
Norcross
Nunes
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pittenger
Pitts
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rouzer
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Russell
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schock
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Trott
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Webster (FL)
Welch
Westerman
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--101
Allen
Amash
Barr
Benishek
Bilirakis
Blum
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Buck
Burgess
Byrne
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Clawson (FL)
Collins (GA)
Conaway
Culberson
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
[[Page H1603]]
Grothman
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Jenkins (KS)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
King (IA)
Knight
Labrador
Latta
Loudermilk
Love
Marchant
Massie
McCaul
McHenry
McSally
Messer
Miller (FL)
Mooney (WV)
Mulvaney
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Rice (SC)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Rothfus
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Stewart
Stutzman
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Yoder
Young (IA)
NOT VOTING--15
Amodei
Barton
Black
Blackburn
Crawford
Fincher
Guthrie
Hinojosa
Lamborn
Long
Roe (TN)
Rush
Smith (WA)
Speier
Yoho
{time} 1505
Messrs. STEWART, SMITH of Nebraska, and RICE of South Carolina
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Personal Explanation
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 110 for passage of
McClintock Amendment No. 6, rollcall No. 111 for passage of the
Democrat Motion to Recommit, and rollcall No. 112 for final passage of
H.R. 749, which took place Wednesday, March 4, 2015, I am not recorded
because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 110, the McClintock Amendment No. 6, and
voted ``nay'' on rollcall Nos. 111 and 112, against the Motion to
Recommit and final passage of H.R. 749.
____________________