[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 17, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H1670-H1677]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1230
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1029, EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
REFORM ACT OF 2015, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1030,
SECRET SCIENCE REFORM ACT OF 2015
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 138 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 138
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1029) to amend the Environmental Research,
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to
provide for Scientific Advisory Board member qualifications,
public participation, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology now printed in
the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original
bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule
an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 114-10. That amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All
points of order against that amendment in the nature of a
substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed
in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
1030) to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from
proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or
assessments based upon science that is not transparent or
reproducible. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-11. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against that amendment in the
nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order
except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee
on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment
may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may
be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall
be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment,
and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All
points of order against such amendments are waived. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania). The gentleman
from Texas is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BURGESS. 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.
General Leave
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 138 provides for the
consideration of two important pieces of legislation to create a more
transparent
[[Page H1671]]
and accountable Environmental Protection Agency, one that works in an
open manner for all of America. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate
for each of the bills contained within the rule. Further, amendments
were made in order for each bill, for a total of six amendments from
Members of both parties.
Mr. Speaker, the first bill contained in this rule, H.R. 1029, the
EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015, brings greater
accountability and oversight to the Board of appointed advisers which
the EPA uses to review the scientific basis for its official actions.
Created in the late 1970s, the Science Advisory Board was intended to
be a check on the EPA in order to ensure that the Agency's math and
statistics were all in order before it promulgated rules or
regulations.
In fact, the original authorization for the Board made clear that the
Science Advisory Board was to report to both the Environmental
Protection Agency and to Congress on its findings. However, over the
course of the past several decades since its inception, the Science
Advisory Board has become little more than a rubberstamp for whatever
the EPA Administrator wishes to accomplish. With the Board members
being handpicked by the Administrator, they are likely being chosen
primarily on the basis that they hold the same view of the
environmental world as whoever the head of the EPA is at any given
time.
The bill before us would provide for a more balanced representation
on the Science Advisory Board, setting out parameters regarding whom
the Administrator can choose and ensuring that State and local
governments have representation on the Board so the Board is not
comprised solely of environmental activists, as has been the case for
some time now. Indeed, current regulations exclude industry experts
from serving on the Science Advisory Board but not officials from
environmental advocacy groups--in other words, special interests. These
new regulations are necessary to ensure against any appearance of
impropriety on the Science Advisory Board.
This legislation becomes even more critical when one considers that
the numerous regulations currently being considered by the
Environmental Protection Agency could have enormous impacts on the
Nation's economy. From proposed carbon regulations to the ratcheting
down of ozone regulations, the Science Advisory Board has been tasked
with reviewing the science that will back up some of the most expensive
rules in the history of the Environmental Protection Agency. It is
critical that the American people have confidence that the Federal
Government is doing what is justified. The fear is that, absent
significant reforms to the Environmental Protection Agency's process,
this simply will not be the case.
The second bill contained in this rule, H.R. 1030, the Secret Science
Reform Act, is also intended to make the Environmental Protection
Agency's rulemaking process more transparent. This was at one time a
goal of the current administration's. We seem to have lost that
somewhere along the way. The legislation states that the Environmental
Protection Agency may take official action on an environmental
regulation only if it has identified all of the scientific and
technical information upon which it has based its decision, and these
must be publicly available studies that can be independently peer
reviewed. This would bring the EPA's process in line with how many
scientific journals operate when they publish peer-reviewed studies.
Further, the bill is prospective, and it will not interfere with any
enacted rules or regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency. To
address concerns expressed during the Science Committee's consideration
of the bill, the legislation spells out that nothing in these
requirements would jeopardize any privacy concerns with scientific
studies. The CDC successfully makes its studies available. It redacts
personal information, and it does not expose any test subject's
personal information. The EPA should have no problem similarly
complying with these requirements.
Mr. Speaker, Americans are waking up to how much of the United States
economy the EPA is attempting to regulate--from carbon dioxide to
ozone--and people are rightly anxious over how these new and, in some
cases, unprecedented rules will affect some consumers' wallets. It is
reasonable and expeditious to ensure that the science that the EPA
relies upon to craft its regulations simply be transparent and simply
be available for all to see and not for just that select group of
industry insiders that the EPA deems worthy to see its work products.
Even the congressional committees that are charged with the
legitimate oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency's actions
have had difficulty in obtaining basic scientific justifications for
the actions taken by the EPA over the last few years. The bills before
us today will begin the process of making the Environmental Protection
Agency accountable to the very constituency that it claims to protect--
the American people.
I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and
``yes'' on the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, for yielding the
customary 30 minutes. I rise today in opposition to the rule and the
underlying bills.
Mr. Speaker, we are fortunate to have put the most recent Republican
manufactured crisis of funding the Department of Homeland Security
behind us. This was not the first crisis caused by the extreme
rightwing in this body, and I am certain that it won't be the last. In
looking ahead to the balance of the year, I am sure that my Republican
colleagues are preparing themselves to continue with the same trend.
For example, the current suspension of the debt limit, which expired
on March 15, is a crisis. By the end of this month, Congress has to act
on the so-called ``doc fix'' or else--crisis. The highway trust fund is
set to run out of money in about 3 months. There is another crisis. At
the end of June, the Export-Import Bank will have to be reauthorized--
crisis. That takes us all the way to the end of the fiscal year, in
September, when we push reset and have to do it all again from the
beginning. This is no way to govern, and it is not what Americans who
are struggling to put food on the table want or deserve.
I haven't mentioned the two bills in question today. That is not by
accident. It is because they are typical go nowhere, do-nothing pet
projects. Mr. Speaker, having served on the Rules Committee for as long
as I have and having made the prediction, as my colleagues on the
Democratic side of the Rules Committee have repeated, that the
legislation is going nowhere, I think that we have been confirmed
virtually every time.
These two measures are attempts by corporate interests to compromise
the Environmental Protection Agency's integrity and stock its
scientific review board with sympathizers. Neither will become law.
``Secret science'' might sound scary, but the rhetoric has outpaced the
reality. Furthermore, this bill will not improve the EPA's science or
make it more transparent. In fact, the bill's impossible standards and
mechanisms will actually force the Environmental Protection Agency to
ignore major and consequential studies.
De-identifying the data is not so simple. Firstly, just because the
data is de-identified doesn't mean that it will stay de-identified. We
are all familiar with how much personal information is readily
available. Only a few pieces of information are required to reconnect
the de-identified dots across the Internet and social media. Moreover,
de-identifying the data means removing critical information that often
renders the results not reproducible, which, under the regime created
by this bill, would then force the EPA to ignore legitimate and,
possibly, important studies.
{time} 1245
Dr. Burgess pointed out that it would protect the wallets of some. I
am equally concerned about the bodies of all.
The other measure we are considering today, H.R. 1029, will give
private industry substantial influence over the EPA. As we should have
learned from the economic collapse, stuffing the regulatory agency with
industry-affiliated experts is like leaving the wolves to mind the
flock.
[[Page H1672]]
Mr. Speaker, I find it most unfortunate that my Republican colleagues
continue to bring up do-nothing bills that will go nowhere and then
spend the rest of their time doing everything in their power to oppose
the President of the United States. Quite frankly, the American people
deserve better.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes for the purpose of
response.
Mr. Speaker, I remind the body that there was an election held in
November of last year, and the results of that election are now part of
history. Prior to that election, it is true, there were bills passed in
the House of Representatives that were submitted to the Senate for
action, and basically nothing happened. The then-Senate majority leader
had made a decision that he was going to prevent any legislation from
passing, he was going to prevent his Members from having to take a vote
that might be construed as difficult, and he was certainly going to
prevent the President from being in a position of having to veto any
legislation.
I would just remind people that the process is the House and Senate
each pass their bills; they agree in a conference committee to any
differences. If that conference report is passed by both Houses,
indeed, it is submitted to the White House for action, and that action
may, indeed, be a veto. But you know what, Mr. Speaker? That veto is
actually an important part of the process.
Right now people are unaware of where the President is on several
issues because he has simply never had to render a decision; it has
always been a full stop over at the Senate majority leader's desk. The
American people spoke loudly last November that they did not want that
process to continue.
Now, one may successfully argue that in 2012 the American people
voted for divided government, but in 2014 they said: You know, that is
not working out so well for us, and we are willing to give the Senate,
to return a voice to the Senate.
We are now giving the Senate an opportunity. These bills were both
passed last year. The gentleman from Florida knows that very well. We
had this very same argument on the floor of the House last fall. Both
bills essentially died in the Senate. It is my hope now that we will
give the Senate yet another opportunity. It is a new day, new Senators,
new majority leader. Let them have a chance to act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BURGESS. I yield myself an additional 2 minutes just to speak
briefly on the substance of H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act.
This is a bill that requires the Environmental Protection Agency to
base its regulations on science, not only on science, but science that
is available to the public and subject to independent verification. Who
could be against that?
That is part of the scientific process. That is part of scientific
inquiry. You balance things, propose a theory; someone proposes an
alternate; you get the data, collect the evidence, do the studies, do
the experiments, make that generally available, and come to a
conclusion.
This is a transparency bill. The administration ran on the concept of
transparency. We are simply trying to help them fulfill that
obligation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the March 3, 2014,
statements of the administration on the EPA Science Advisory Board
Reform Act and Secret Science Reform Act.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 1029--EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015
(Rep. Lucas, R-OK and 24 cosponsors)
The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1029, which would
affect the ability of EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) to
form panels and perform its essential functions. The SAB,
along with other functions, reviews the quality and adequacy
of certain scientific and technical information used by EPA
or proposed as the basis for EPA regulations. Therefore, it
is imperative that the SAB be composed of the most
knowledgeable scientific and technical experts available. The
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which governs Federal
advisory committees such as the SAB, provides for balanced
panels and subcommittees that include experts with diverse
backgrounds who represent wide-ranging perspectives.
H.R. 1029 would negatively affect the appointment of
experts and would weaken the scientific independence and
integrity of the SAB. For example, the bill would impose a
hiring quota for SAB members based on employment by a State,
local, or tribal government as opposed to scientific
expertise. The bill would also place limitations on SAB
members' participation in ``advisory activities that directly
or indirectly involve review and evaluation of their own
work.'' Determining the practical meaning of ``indirect''
involvement will be difficult and consequently problematic to
implement. The provisions on appointment of experts to the
SAB and various other requirements could also preclude the
nomination of scientists with significant expertise in their
fields.
In addition, H.R. 1029 would add burdensome requirements on
the SAB with respect to solicitation of and response to
public comments, above and beyond those imposed by FACA.
These new requirements would saddle the SAB with workload
that would impair its ability to carry out its mandate.
Further, H.R. 1029 would add an unnecessary, burdensome, and
costly layer of requirements for hazard and risk assessments
without defining the scope of these requirements and absent
recognition that many high profile assessments already are
reviewed by the SAB.
If the President were presented with H.R. 1029, his senior
advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
____
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 1030--Secret Science Reform Act of 2015
(Rep. Smith, R-TX and 28 cosponsors)
The Administration strongly supports regulatory
transparency, but strongly opposes H.R. 1030. The bill would
impose arbitrary, unnecessary, and expensive requirements
that would seriously impede the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) ability to use science to protect public
health and the environment, as required under an array of
environmental laws, while increasing uncertainty for
businesses and States.
H.R. 1030 could be used to prevent EPA from proposing,
finalizing, or disseminating any ``covered action'' until
legal challenges about the legitimate withholding of certain
scientific and technical information are resolved. Provisions
of the bill could be interpreted to prevent EPA from taking
important, and possibly legally required, actions, where
supporting data is not publicly available, and legal
challenges could delay important environmental and health
protections. For example, the data underlying some
scientifically-important studies is not made broadly
available in order to protect the privacy of test subjects,
and modeling that EPA uses for a variety of purposes are not
EPA property and therefore cannot be publicly released. H.R.
1030 could interfere with EPA's ability to take actions based
on such data. In short, the bill would undermine EPA's
ability to protect the health of Americans, would impose
expensive new mandates on EPA, and could impose substantial
litigation costs on the Federal government. It also could
impede EPA's reliance on the best available science.
Instead of an overly broad bill that would tie EPA's hands,
the Administration urges the Congress to support the
Administration's efforts to make scientific and technical
information more accessible and regulations more transparent.
A bill consistent with the principles expressed in the
Administration's Executive Order 13563 ``Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review'' and the December 2010 Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Memorandum on Scientific
Integrity, as well as implementation of the Administration's
recent open data and public access initiatives (e.g., OSTP's
February 2013 policy memorandum on Increasing Access to the
Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research) would
greatly benefit the American people. EPA also has embarked on
several initiatives that enhance access to and transparency
of data and science used to inform policy and regulatory
decisions.
If the President were presented with H.R. 1030, his senior
advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
Mr. HASTINGS. I would urge that my colleague who made the comment
that we don't know where the President is, well, there is where the
President is.
I would also ask rhetorically, if it is that all these things that we
passed that I said were going nowhere last year, why is it that we
haven't had anything go anywhere this year with both a Republican
Senate and a Republican House, and neither of these measures is going
to go anywhere nor are they going to go to conference, and I believe
people know that.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, we are going to
offer an amendment to the rule that would allow the House to consider
the Promoting U.S. Jobs Through Exports Act. This bill would renew the
Export-Import Bank's charter for an additional 7 years, ensuring
certainty for U.S. exporters and businesses through 2022.
To discuss our proposal, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on Financial Services and my good friend.
[[Page H1673]]
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I would like to thank the gentleman
from Florida for his leadership on this important issue. I applaud him,
Leader Pelosi, and Whip Hoyer for their efforts to ensure we support
policies that create American jobs and keep U.S. businesses
competitive.
I find the contrast with the bills we consider this week particularly
striking as the out-of-touch Republican leadership wastes our time with
measures that deny science and strip workers of critical rights.
Mr. Speaker, I am in disbelief that we are still debating the future
of the Export-Import Bank, which we know supports hundreds of thousands
of jobs and levels the playing field so that American businesses, large
and small, can compete globally. The facts underscore what is at stake.
In fiscal year 2014, Ex-Im Bank approved more than 3,400 transactions
with a total estimated export value of $27.5 billion. This support is
estimated to have sustained 164,000 export-related U.S. jobs. Over the
past 5 years, it is estimated that the Bank has created or sustained
more than 1.2 million private sector jobs. Moreover, all this was
accomplished as the Bank returned over $674 million back to the
American taxpayers just last year.
Over the past two decades, the Bank has generated a surplus of $6.9
billion for U.S. taxpayers, but for months a handful of extremists in
this Chamber have refused to accept the numerous and widespread
benefits provided by the Export-Import Bank to our economy. They have
ignored these numbers as well as the diverse array of interests who
support the Bank, such as the United States Chamber of Commerce; the
National Small Business Association; the National Association of
Manufacturers; labor unions, such as the AFL-CIO; and many others.
Instead, they have decided to follow the talking points of extremist
groups like Heritage Action and the Club for Growth. I find it ironic
that Republicans are actively working to ensure this important engine
of job creation closes its doors while also waging war with President
Obama over the Keystone XL pipeline, which even the most inflated
estimates say would create far fewer jobs than Ex-Im.
However, I have been heartened to see a number of frustrated
Republicans, some of them even Tea Partiers themselves, say enough is
enough and have chosen to stand up for real workers and businesses
rather than a handful of ideologues dictating policy from a Washington
think tank. I applaud the 58 Republicans who courageously have come out
against their leadership in favor of renewing the Export-Import Bank's
charter.
As we take an important vote that will bring Export-Import Bank
legislation to the floor today, I ask those Republicans to once again
show their courage, show their leadership, and show your constituents
who rely on the Export-Import Bank for jobs and economic growth that
you are willing to do what is best for them and not what is politically
expedient.
Democrats want to provide certainty for the businesses and workers
who rely on the Bank, and that is why I, along with Mr. Heck of
Washington, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, and Whip Hoyer of Maryland,
recently introduced legislation to reauthorize, reform, and reenergize
the Export-Import Bank. The measure takes a sensible approach to
renewing the Bank, extending its charter for 7 years, increasing its
lending authority to meet the needs of U.S. exporters, and modernizing
the Bank's programs to better serve small- and medium-sized businesses.
I couldn't be prouder of my democratic colleagues, 189 of whom joined
as cosponsors just a few days after being introduced. Such widespread
support sends a strong message to America's manufacturers, businesses,
and workers that Democrats are united in preserving an institution that
for decades has helped this Nation create jobs and grow the economy;
and it makes clear that if those supportive Republicans were to join
us, this Congress could pass an extension of the Export-Import Bank's
charter today.
Mr. Speaker and Members, this is the right thing to do for our
workers and for our businesses and for our Nation. Let's stand up for
what is right.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute for the purpose of
a response.
I appreciate the comments on the Export-Import Bank. I would point
out to the body that today's rule has under consideration bills dealing
with regulating the Environmental Protection Agency. The House did pass
an extension of the Export-Import Bank charter last December that
follows through until June of this year. There will be ample
opportunity for us to have this debate and engage in debate as, indeed,
people of this country want us to do. Today is not the time for that
debate. Today is the day for deciding whether or not this body will
further regulate the EPA.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I would think the time to create American
jobs is anytime, and sooner rather than later.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), my good friend, the ranking member of the
Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and
Trade.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Hastings for yielding to me.
I, too, rise in support of H.R. 1031, the Promoting U.S. Jobs Through
Exports Act of 2014, which reauthorizes the Export-Import Bank long
term. I am so proud to have been able to introduce this legislation,
along with our ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services,
Ms. Waters, and Representatives Heck and Hoyer.
The bill has 189 Democratic cosponsors. You add that number to the 57
Republicans that are supportive of Representative Fincher's legislation
to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank and just do the math there: 189
and 57, far and above any kind of majority needed to reauthorize this
important jobs creation, jobs engine, and I would hope that this body
would move forward on reauthorizing this legislation.
My district of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, has a very strong manufacturing
and industrial base. I believe that we are maybe second in the country
that really depends on a strong manufacturing and industrial base for
our basic economic activity, and the small manufacturers in Milwaukee
utilize the Export-Import Bank to export goods and services to places
like China and India.
One of the narratives, the untrue narratives about the Export-Import
Bank is that it is a utility for big companies like Boeing, it is the
Bank of Boeing. Well, not so much. There is an endless supply chain,
like the ones that I have visited recently.
I just recently went to a shop in Milwaukee that employs 30 people--
30 people--yet they export U.S. goods to work on the Panama Canal.
{time} 1300
The president of that company just flat out stated that he doesn't
exist without the Export-Import Bank. Folks, it is just that simple.
I have heard many debates and arguments about the importance of
passing stuff like Keystone, which is debatable as a job creator, and
where it does create jobs, it is in a very small geographic area--
whereas the Export-Import Bank creates hundreds of thousands of jobs in
all of our districts.
Folks, it is just really that simple. The Export-Import Bank is a
necessary part of our discussion about creating jobs.
Until we get past the political arguments that are being made about
hanging the Export-Import Bank out there as low-hanging fruit to
demonstrate our willingness to cut off so-called corporate welfare so
that we can then get at cutting off entitlement programs to people,
until we get past that cynical debate, I don't think that we are going
to see very much in the way of improving our job creation performance
in the United States.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes for the purpose of
a response.
Talking about job creation is well and good, but we should also
concern ourselves about job erosion and job loss. I don't know if the
EPA is the number one Federal agency involved in job erosion and job
loss, but it is right up there.
If you talk to anyone at home in your district about what is the
Federal agency that is responsible for more job destruction, the EPA,
if not at the top of the list, is right behind some of the others.
[[Page H1674]]
What we are about today is to regulate the regulator. It is not even
to regulate the regulator, just have the regulator disclose to us what
information upon which they are relying to make those regulations.
Why does the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act matter? Because
the Science Advisory Board plays a critical role in reviewing the
scientific information that forms the foundation of costly EPA
regulations. What is the cost of those EPA regulations, Mr. Speaker?
The cost is jobs.
The work we are doing today is important. I encourage my colleagues
to vote in favor of the rule and in favor of the underlying
legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 5
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), my
good friend and a member of the Committee on Financial Services.
Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Florida for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the previous
question in order that I might support Mr. Hastings' effort to offer
the amendment to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.
Here is why. The Export-Import Bank is a job-creating machine. Over
the last 5 years, it has created--by good and scientifically-based
estimates--about 1.2 million well-paying jobs, good-paying jobs, the
kind of jobs that you can have and buy a home and send your kids to
college and that touch every congressional district in the State. The
Export-Import Bank is a job-creating machine.
The Export-Import Bank is also a deficit-reducing machine. Not one
red penny in the last generation has been used to subsidize it. In
fact, $7 billion has been transferred to the Treasury to reduce the
deficit. It was $1 billion 2 years ago, $675 million last year, and a
projected $8 million this year. The Export-Import Bank is a deficit-
reducing machine.
In addition to that, it is a superperformer, by any private sector
measure. I come from the private sector. How they conduct their
business is the envy of the financial services sector.
It has a default rate of less than--you are hearing this
correctly--.175 percent and a collection rate over 50 percent. It is a
superperformer; yet the Export-Import Bank goes away in exactly 105
days--poof, gone, vanished.
The gentleman from Texas asked a very good question, a fair question:
Why now? Well, the answer is: The clock is ticking, tick tock, tick
tock. There are 105 days to go; yet the committee of jurisdiction has
not had a hearing, has not scheduled a markup, and has issued no notice
for either.
In fact, when we had the committee oversight plan before us, what did
the committee chair do? He opposed a neutrally worded amendment that
said, Let's take up the Export-Import Bank and subject it to regular
order. That is all. Let's go through regular order.
There is no intent to take up the Export-Import Bank--no hearing, no
markup, a rejection of regular order. That is why now.
It has been said, erroneously, that the Export-Import Bank primarily
benefits Big Business--principally, aerospace. That is so wrong on so
many levels, I cannot exaggerate it.
To begin with, 90 percent of the transactions of the Export-Import
Bank go to small business, but it also fails to understand something,
this argument coming from people who are supposed to understand the
private sector.
Take a company like Boeing, a pride of America. Please remember,
ladies and gentlemen, there are only two companies on the face of the
planet that produce large airplanes, and America has but one of them.
Do you know what they rely on? 12,000 businesses in their supply chain,
many of which are small.
Here is the fact. Last week, I was home in a town called Puyallup,
which most people can't even pronounce. It is a beautiful community of
38,000 people. It is not anywhere near Renton or Everett, where the
airplanes are manufactured.
Do you know how many small businesses there are in the confines of
the city limits of Puyallup that supply the aerospace industry and
benefit from the Export-Import Bank? Seventeen, small businesses
everywhere, but it is also stand-alone small businesses.
Another in my district is called Pexco. They produce traffic cones
and the like that they sell internationally. Ex-Im financed $2.3
million of their product last year.
I had a couple in my office just a few weeks ago from eastern
Washington. I don't even represent them. They have agricultural
products, mint extract and mint oil. Before they began working with the
Export-Import Bank, one-third of their gross revenues were in exports.
They began working with them, and their domestic side has grown. Now,
it is two-thirds.
I had another agricultural interest in the office. They said that 5
years ago, 5 percent of their business was export. They did not use the
Export-Import Bank. They began using it, and it is now 50 percent.
Finally, ladies and gentlemen, let us remember that there are 60
developed nations on the face of the Earth, and if we allow our Export-
Import Bank to expire, we will be the only one on the face of the
planet without an export credit authority.
Let me tell you, China is rubbing their hands in anticipation
because, in addition to Airbus--remember, we are 2 to 8 years away from
China manufacturing a wide-body airplane. They can't wait for the
Export-Import Bank to expire so they can capture market share.
Why in the world would we unilaterally disarm? Remember this: We are
only 5 percent of the world's population.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. HECK of Washington. If we want to keep and grow our middle class,
we need to learn how to sell into the growing middle class of the rest
of the world, and that requires the Export-Import Bank.
The Export-Import Bank is a job-creating machine, a deficit-reducing
machine, and a superperformer. The votes are here. It is 190, by the
way--not 189--and 58 on that side of the aisle.
There is a part of me, a voice in me that wants to shout: Let my
people go. The votes are here. It is not scheduled for a hearing. Let
Mr. Hastings offer his amendment. Let's reauthorize the Export-Import
Bank.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind Members we are talking
about the EPA today, a job-destroying agency.
I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a
member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I appreciate my friend and colleague from the
Rules Committee yielding me time to speak on this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak on the rule for H.R. 1030 and H.R.
1029 because I think, frankly, it fits into what I have just been
hearing, but I think it fits in sort of maybe a perverse way, but also
a very good way, because it emphasizes exactly what we need to be
talking about here, and that is jobs, that is the economy, that is good
growth, that is good government, that is the things that we are
supposed to be doing and working on that and finding out why certain
things don't get done.
Anybody watching over the last little bit would actually have a
concern as to what we are doing, and I think it goes back to a simple
understanding that there is a very clear understanding of why and who
is offering what amendments and what bills up here. The Republican
majority is offering a vision in which people are empowered in
government, not taking the incentives away.
I think it was summed up very well in a statement just the other day
from the administration that actually said that their definition, if
you will, of a burdensome regulation was something that burdened the
employees of a government agency.
I think it is very clear from our perspective that what is a
burdensome regulation is something that burdens American businesses and
burdens the scientific communities and burdens those in which
government is putting its finger on and stifling. There is a big
difference here. All you have to do is watch what is said and watch
what is done, and you will begin to see that.
I will not be supporting, as we go back to these bills, all the
amendments
[[Page H1675]]
made in order under this rule. I am still pleased that we, as a House,
are considering them as we come to the floor and also that the House
will ultimately work its will.
One of the key differences highlighted is in how we as conservatives
and others in this body look at H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform
Act. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the committee
markup of this legislation argued that ``this marks a radical departure
from longstanding practices.''
I hope this is the case, for these acclaimed ``longstanding
practices'' have favored interest group agendas over scientific
integrity, back rooms over public participation, and sacrificed
transparency and openness at the altar of political expediency.
Conservatives in this body believe that Congress should not tolerate
an administration who refuses to make public the scientific data behind
numerous EPA regulations, regulations that are crippling the ability of
businesses to survive in this economic climate created and sustained by
the failed policies of this administration.
This administration issued a statement of opposition, as I just
talked about a moment ago, saying that underlying measures in these
bills would be ``burdensome'' on the government. I think if our
Founders were hearing this today, they would stand up and say: That is
not what we intended.
Read the document. The document said a limited, structured government
that supports the people, that supports our welfare, and supports the
cause of the United States of America, not in a form in which
government is the problem in finding out these problems and keeping
from areas in a scientific community, in the business community.
There is a clear, distinct difference here. What is burdensome on
government is what then turns around and becomes burdensome on the
American people. You see, conservatives in Congress try to streamline
and reform our regulatory system, ensure that cost and benefits of
regulations are analyzed before it is implemented, and we are told that
that is burdensome.
While the conservatives are being criticized for burdensome reforms,
they are also, at the same time, pushing through $181.5 billion in
regulations just last year.
Apparently, the administration has redefined burdensome to mean
something that most do not. It is just another example of a disconnect.
Now, what is often said at this point is that conservatives and
Republicans don't want clean water. They want to destroy the
environmental integrity. They want bad air and poor traffic control and
maybe everything else in the world that you want to say because there
is a belief that government will fix all that.
There is a proper role for government, but in this environment, let's
have transparency, let's have openness, let's have public
participation. Let's not keep stuff away from the American people. That
is what they are asking for. That is what they expect from their
government.
Instead of marginalizing the honest debate about science and being
about scientific enterprise, instead of saying that they are for
something that nobody is for, let's be honest about the legislation.
If you don't really want to talk about the legislation, let's talk
about everything else in the world. That is a good way to distract. We
don't want to talk about a process that is broken. We will talk about
something else.
No, it is not going to happen this time. I agree with the previous
speaker. Let my people go. Let my people go. Let the government be
open. Let the government be transparent.
Let the government be limited so that the American people are not
limited, the American people have all they need, and that is the
purpose of these bills.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am always fascinated when our colleagues
come to the floor of this great deliberative body and argue against
government. The last time I looked, all 435 plus 6 of us and the 100
United States Senators sought public office to be involved in making
government better.
{time} 1315
The government is the people of the United States. And it is not only
the respective agencies; it is also our counties, our parishes, our
districts, our cities that are the government. When we say that, it
makes it sound as if the government is bad, and defense is the only
entity that all of us agree is our responsibility.
But yes, clean water is our responsibility, and, yes, emissions that
cause harm to the environment and to individuals are our mission. Those
are responsibilities of government.
Yes, air traffic control is a responsibility of government. Yes, the
way our roads are undertaken, or the repair of bridges, yes, that is
the government.
So I have a lot of trouble with an antigovernment attitude when, in
fact, we are just being anti-ourselves.
Mr. Speaker, we know that science is the formation of conclusions
upon a foundation of testable observation. Sometimes mistakes are made,
and they can be construed as valuable because you learn what not to do
the next time.
Government, for example, operated NASA and still has some role in
that, and many of the experiments that were failed experiments led to
us understanding how to develop the microwave and how to develop
scientific heart devices that have benefited the American people. Yes,
that was the government.
But this Republican-caused crisis was resolved in the same way it was
a few weeks back, the same way it was resolved the last time the
Republicans shut down the government. It was resolved on the backs of
Democrats.
When the other party decides to work with the Democratic Party, the
American people benefit from its government, and we saw evidence of
that in the Homeland Security financing measure.
Given how often we find ourselves in similar situations, I can't help
but wonder what hypothesis my friends are trying to test. I do not
think that seeing how far our security and economic stability can bend
before breaking is what is meant by ``the great American experiment.''
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and
defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule that is
going nowhere fast, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
First off, I want to bring us back to the issue at hand today; that,
is the rule for consideration of H.R. 1029 and H.R. 1030.
H.R. 1029 protects jobs by helping to ensure that important
scientific advice is balanced and unbiased. The bill promotes public
participation and encourages the Science Advisory Board to draw on
State and private sector expertise, fairly simple concepts.
H.R. 1030 is a transparency bill that simply asks the EPA to show its
work before implementing regulations that cost billions of dollars and
destroy jobs. Transparency and reproducibility are basic tenets of
science. Costly environmental regulations should only be based on data
that are available to independent scientists and to the public.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, if the EPA has nothing to hide, then there
is no good reason to keep this data from the American people.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of
the two important bills to provide for an open and transparent
rulemaking at the Environmental Protection Agency. I certainly thank
the authors for their thoughtful legislation. I urge my colleagues to
support both the rule and the underlying bills.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 138 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec 3. 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.1031) to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the
United States, and for other purposes. General debate shall
[[Page H1676]]
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 Financial Services. 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. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 1031.
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of the resolution, if ordered,
and suspending the rules and passing H.R. 1191.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232,
nays 181, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 116]
YEAS--232
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 (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 (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
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
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
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
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schweikert
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 (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
NAYS--181
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
Caardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
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
Gutieerrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
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
Lee
Levin
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujaan, 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
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Saanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velaazquez
Visclosky
[[Page H1677]]
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--19
Collins (GA)
Conyers
Graves (MO)
Hinojosa
Hudson
Hurt (VA)
Lewis
Lummis
McKinley
Payne
Roskam
Rush
Sanford
Schock
Scott, Austin
Smith (WA)
Wilson (FL)
Young (AK)
Zinke
{time} 1348
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York and Mses. DeGETTE, ESTY, and
CLARKE of New York changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 116 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall
vote No. 116, ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 138. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea.''
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. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 236,
noes 180, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 117]
AYES--236
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
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)
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 (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
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
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
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
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schweikert
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 (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--180
Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Caardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
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
Gutieerrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
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
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujaan, 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
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Saanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velaazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--16
Coffman
Conyers
Graves (MO)
Hinojosa
Hudson
Lummis
McKinley
Payne
Ribble
Roskam
Rush
Sanford
Schock
Scott, Austin
Smith (WA)
Young (AK)
{time} 1355
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 117, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________