[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 78 (Wednesday, May 20, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H3403-H3410]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1245
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2262, SPURRING PRIVATE AEROSPACE
COMPETITIVENESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP ACT OF 2015; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 880, AMERICAN RESEARCH AND COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF
2015; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES; AND
PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM MAY 22, 2015, THROUGH
MAY 29, 2015
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 273 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 273
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. 2262) to facilitate a pro-growth environment
for the developing commercial space industry by encouraging
private sector investment and creating more stable and
predictable regulatory conditions, 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 or their respective designees. After
general debate the bill shall be considered
[[Page H3404]]
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 114-17. 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. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 880) to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to simplify and make
permanent the research credit. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways
and Means now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment
printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment
thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways
and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of May 21, 2015, for the Speaker to entertain
motions that the House suspend the rules as though under
clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall
consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the
designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this
section.
Sec. 4. The Committee on Appropriations may, at any time
before 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 27, 2015, file privileged
reports to accompany measures making appropriations for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2016.
Sec. 5. On any legislative day during the period from May
22, 2015, through May 29, 2015--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 6. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 5 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. STIVERS. 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. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule for two bills--H.R. 2262, the SPACE Act of 2015, and
H.R. 880, the American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2015. House
Resolution 273 provides for a structured rule for the consideration of
H.R. 2262 and a closed rule for the consideration of H.R. 880.
The resolution provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between
the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, for H.R. 2262, and 1 hour of debate, equally
divided between the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Ways and Means, for H.R. 880.
The resolution also provides for the consideration of seven
amendments to H.R. 2262, and it provides for a motion to recommit for
each bill. In addition, the rule provides for the normal recess
authorities to allow the chair to manage pro forma sessions; it
provides for the Committee on Appropriations to have the opportunity to
file reports during the district work period; and it provides for
suspension authority for Thursday to provide flexibility on the last
day prior to the district work period.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution and the
underlying legislation.
Both of these bills represent critical investments in science and
technological innovation. On the floor this week, we have debated and
passed several pieces of legislation to encourage the research and
development of new technologies and ideas, moving our economy and our
country forward and cementing our place in the world as the leader in
scientific discovery.
These discoveries and the research they require will promote and
create high-tech, high-paying jobs that can have untold benefits to our
economy, benefiting all Americans. The rule and the underlying
legislation we have under consideration today continues that objective,
and I look forward to discussing these critical issues with our
colleagues here in the House.
H.R. 2262, the SPACE Act of 2015, is a package of four bills that
will update the Commercial Space Launch Act. H.R. 2262, the SPACE Act,
as introduced by the majority leader, the gentleman from California
(Mr. McCarthy), will facilitate a progrowth environment for the
commercial space industry by encouraging private sector investment and
by creating a more stable and predictable regulatory environment.
H.R. 1508, the Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act,
introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey), will promote the
development of a United States commercial space resource exploration
and utilization industry, and it will increase the exploration and
utilization of resources in outer space.
H.R. 2261, the Commercial Remote Sensing Act, introduced by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine), will facilitate the
continued development of the commercial remote sensing industry and
protect our national security.
Finally, H.R. 2263, the Office of Space Commerce Act, proposed by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), will rename the Office of
Space Commercialization to the Office of Space Commerce, and it will
seek to foster the conditions for the economic and technological growth
of the United States space commerce industry.
This package of bills will ensure American leadership in space by
fostering a strong and vibrant commercial space industry. Without this
legislation, the commercial space industry may face a myriad of
regulatory hurdles that would threaten America's continued
exceptionalism in space exploration.
The other underlying bill in this rule, H.R. 880, addresses the
research and development tax credit. In 1981, President Reagan signed
into law a critical research and development tax credit, but Washington
has let it expire and then has renewed it over a dozen times since
then.
As we discussed last month as to our tax credits, Mr. Speaker, the
R&D tax credit was included in the package of retroactive bills and
extenders that was signed by the President on December 19 of last year,
providing just 7 business days of certainty for businesses seeking to
utilize this provision of our Tax Code. It, along with all of the
others that expired again on December 31 of last year, currently remain
expired. The temporary nature of the now expired research credit limits
its effectiveness, which prevents some businesses from having certainty
on long-term investments in U.S.-based research and development.
More research and development means more innovation, greater economic
growth, and more American
[[Page H3405]]
jobs. In 2012, American companies invested $302 billion in research and
development. As of 2011, 1.47 million Americans worked directly in
research and development. Increased certainty, combined with the
simplification of our Tax Code, would lead to more research and more
American jobs.
Investment in research and development is the key to America
remaining the world's leader in innovation. The percentage of patents
awarded by the U.S. Patent Office has increased each year, but the
share awarded to U.S. innovators has declined. In the year 2000, 54
percent of the patents awarded were of American origin. By 2014, the
number fell to 48 percent. From 2001 to 2011, America's share of global
research and development declined from 37 percent to just 30 percent.
By making the research credit permanent, researchers can stop
worrying about whether Congress is going to extend the tax credit and
can, instead, focus on new discoveries that will help fuel our economy
and grow jobs.
I look forward to debating these bills with our House colleagues, and
I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me the customary 30
minutes for debate.
I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bills.
Before I proceed, I did not speak during the 1 minutes, and I want to
also take cognizance of this being the 50th anniversary of Head Start
and, additionally, this month of May as being Foster Care Month. Like
many Members, I have a young person who has a more than compelling
story about foster care--Ke'Onda Johnson from Royal Palm, Florida--who
is shadowing me today, and I am delighted that she and other youngsters
have this opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 880,
the American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2015, and H.R. 2262,
the SPACE Act of 2015--two separate bills, wholly unrelated in content
and purpose.
As a first order of business, I believe it is critical that I take a
moment to highlight the manner in which we are debating this rule
today. The deliberation of multiple, unrelated bills under a single
rule is a disturbing trend that has ballooned under Republican
leadership and is one that threatens the very foundation of the
democratic process. Forcing several pieces of legislation into a single
rule not only prevents Members of this Chamber from making informed
judgments about the proper floor procedure for each measure, but it
also leads to disjointed and often perplexing debates about an
assortment of unconnected issues.
{time} 1300
Votes on the House floor should reflect where Members stand on the
specific questions at issue, not on a set of complex and unrelated
procedures, some of which they support and others which they oppose.
Indeed, just yesterday, the House considered H. Res. 271, a rule
providing for consideration of three measures: the Highway and
Transportation Funding Act, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act,
and the America COMPETES Reauthorization bill.
The debate on that rule vacillated from surface transportation
projects, to funding for the legislative branch, to the prioritization
of science research development. Such debate erodes the integrity of
House proceedings by creating confusing alternations in subject matter
that eliminate the ability to reinforce a line of reasoning or respond
to opposing arguments.
The grab-bag approach has skyrocketed since Republicans assumed
control of the House in 2011, with a record 49 grab-bag rules reported
out during the 113th Congress. Even more disheartening, we are on
schedule to shatter this record during the 114th Congress, having
already approved an unconscionable 14 of these rules in less than 5
months.
In fairness, the chairman of the Committee on Rules did say, in
response to one of my colleagues and myself the day before, that this
practice is not likely to continue at its present pace, and I await the
opportunity for him to fulfill his view with reference to that matter.
Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today for consideration of yet
another grab-bag rule governing two bills of significant importance
that, as a result of this rule, will undoubtedly escape the due
consideration each deserves.
H.R. 880, the American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2015,
would make permanent a tax credit for qualified research expenses that
expired at the end of last year. It is my strong belief that Democrats
and Republicans, alike, support a tax credit that will help facilitate
innovation and foster advancements in research, enabling American
companies to grow and prosper. Technological innovation stemming from
research and development serves as an important engine to our Nation's
economic growth.
My opposition to this piece of legislation, therefore, comes in first
part from my Republican colleagues' decision to make this tax credit
permanent in what I view as a fiscally irresponsible way.
Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends have long touted themselves as the
party of fiscal responsibility. For this reason, I find it a bit
insincere that they now seek to implement a tax credit with no offsets
for lost revenue. As a result, the Joint Committee on Taxation
estimates that this bill would add almost $182 billion to the deficit
over the next 10 years. I have stated time and time again that we
cannot continue to provide tax cuts and credits without a mechanism to
pay for them. It is comical to me that my Republican friends claim to
be the party of fiscal responsibility while they, in the same breath,
advocate a measure that would add nearly $200 billion to the Federal
deficit.
In addition to this legislation's reckless budgetary impact, I
disagree with the piecemeal approach the majority has taken in making
these tax credits permanent. More than 50 tax provisions expired at the
end of last year, many of them critical to the middle and working class
and, yes, poor families. And yet, instead of addressing the issues
facing our Tax Code in a comprehensive, bipartisan way, the majority
has decided to leave certain tax credits--ones that would directly
improve the lives of hard-working American families, such as the work
opportunity tax credit, the new markets tax credit, and renewable
energy tax credit--to an uncertain fate.
The American people expect, and I am sure that they deserve, a Tax
Code that supports our shared priorities. Cherry-picking tax credits to
extend, and then allowing those credits to dramatically increase the
deficit, is, in my view, a step in the wrong direction. It is an
unacceptable step away from bipartisan, comprehensive tax reform.
I agree, as most of my colleagues likely do as well, that the
research tax credit is critical for American innovation. That is why I
am truly disappointed, although not surprised, that my Republican
friends have again chosen to place partisan politicking above the needs
of our constituents.
This rule also provides for consideration of the SPACE Act of 2015,
another piece of once bipartisan legislation that has been distorted
into an unrecognizable measure that panders to industry giants without
regard for the safety of the American public or of spaceflight
passengers.
While the enticement of space travel hovers over the objectives of
this legislation, we must address the reality of what this bill seeks
to accomplish. First, this bill reads like a laundry list of commercial
space launch industry requests, exempting it from needed safety
regulations and providing essentially complete immunity for civil
lawsuits by removing claims related to commercial space launches from
State court and mandating that they be heard in Federal Court, where
few appropriate legal remedies exist. In practice, this measure will
immunize commercial space companies from legal liability, even in cases
of recklessness or intentional misconduct.
Also troubling, this bill provides tremendous subsidies for insurance
coverage--and that is kind of interesting--to protect wealthy
recreational spacecraft passengers. Why on earth, and there is no pun
intended here, are we spending taxpayer dollars on individuals wealthy
enough to travel into space for sport?
[[Page H3406]]
While it is uncontested that the issues these bills seek to address
are important, the partisan way in which they have been presented
prevents a robust deliberation, and I therefore oppose both the rule
and the underlying bills.
I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to some of the
comments of the gentleman from Florida and remind him that each bill
will be separately debated and that, obviously, this combined rule is a
floor time management technique that the chairman of the Committee on
Rules yesterday said was an aberration. I take him at his word; and I
think it is important to note that, during Democratic majorities, this
was certainly not an unheard-of practice, either.
I do want to make sure that I reiterate that every bill will be
separately debated; and I would remind the gentleman that, during the
time we have to debate the rule, if we actually stick to the topics
related to the bills and the rules, it will help us manage our floor
time even better.
With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Posey).
Mr. POSEY. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying
legislation.
Despite some of the comments we have heard from across the aisle this
morning, I remember my first 2 years, my first term here, and not one
time was I allowed to even file a single amendment to a single bill
here. All the rules were closed, and it was run like a king would run a
kingdom, not a democratic republic. Here, today, I think the other side
has already filed seven amendments on one of these bills. That is seven
times more than I ever got to dream about filing when you ran this
place.
Another great thing about this bill, you actually get to read it
before we pass it. We have done all our bills like that since we have
taken control. You actually get to read the bills before they are
passed. When you all were in the majority, we had to pass them before
you read them. I think you remember the famous quote.
You refer to this as a grab bag. The only grab bag I see here is the
litany of totally unrelated subjects rattled off, as if they somehow
related to this bill. I mean, that doesn't pass the straight face test.
Now to the bill. I would like to thank the majority leader, Kevin
McCarthy, and Chairman Lamar Smith for their hard work on the SPACE
Act. The SPACE Act will help ensure American leadership in space,
facilitating the growth and stability of the commercial space industry.
This is an important, historic, and exciting piece of legislation.
This legislation includes many important provisions to update our
laws and the oversight of the commercial space industry, including
title 2 of the Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act--
historic, bipartisan, bicameral legislation introduced with my
colleague from the State of Washington, Derek Kilmer.
I appreciate the support H.R. 1508, incorporated herein, has received
from many members of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
and the thorough work and research of Senators Patty Murray and Marco
Rubio, who introduced identical legislation in the United States
Senate.
The SPACE Act also includes a provision which would streamline
regulations and encourage cooperation between government agencies'
commercial space activities to eliminate red tape and bureaucracy that
are impeding development of America's commercial space industry.
The Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of Defense, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and other agencies are
all involved in overseeing many commercial space launches, and
sometimes there are duplicative measures that could be streamlined,
cutting costs to both the Federal Government and commercial companies
and making the United States companies more competitive in the global
marketplace.
Let me add that this bill includes a provision requiring the FAA to
provide direction for space support vehicles, also known as
experimental aircraft. Unfortunately, for too long, the FAA has held
off providing direction by means of a regulatory framework for these
endeavors to safely support the United States commercial space
endeavors. In Florida, there is such an entity, approved by NASA and
operating out of the Kennedy Space Center, which the FAA grounded
because they use experimental aircraft. This is a testament that FAA
needs serious reform and needs to be brought into the 21st century.
In short, the SPACE Act is a critical piece of legislation to the
future of our commercial space industry, and it is important to our
space exploration efforts as well.
I thank my colleagues again for their work on the SPACE Act and urge
all Members to support the rule today and passage of this important
legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Marchant). Members are reminded to
direct their remarks to the Chair and not to other Members in the
second person.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who is the ranking member on the
Committee on Ways and Means and a good friend of mine.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. I thank Mr. Hastings for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about support for the R&D credit.
Democrats have a long track record of supporting the R&D tax credit.
Indeed, I have often been the author of legislation to strengthen it.
This debate, purely and simply, is about fiscal responsibility, about
taking one tax provision and making it permanent without paying one
dime for it.
When former Chairman Camp unveiled a tax reform proposal last year,
he undertook a comprehensive consideration of the more than 50 tax
provisions that expired at the end of last year, but in a fiscally
responsible manner.
{time} 1315
This bill does just the opposite. It continues a helter-skelter
approach toward tax extenders, without any regard whatsoever for paying
the hundreds of billions of dollars they cost to make them permanent.
Last year, Ways and Means Republicans passed 14 permanent extensions
at a cost of $825 billion. They went nowhere because the President has
made clear his opposition to this approach.
With this bill, this year's price tag has reached $586.3 billion. It
is particularly glaring that the majority is passing unpaid-for tax
cuts the very same week that they once again put off a long-term
extension of highway funding because they are unable to find a revenue
stream.
There is no lack of support for the R&D credit among us Democrats. It
is the approach Republicans are taking that we oppose and strongly so.
It is fiscally irresponsible indeed, and it would leave behind vital
provisions that help hard-working American families, like the expansion
of the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit, and the American
opportunity tax credit.
We stand ready to work with the majority on tax reform and on a long-
term extension of highway funding. Today's R&D bill is tax reform in
reverse. It makes talk of fiscal responsibility hypocrisy and creates
another big financial pothole standing in the way of long-term highway
funding.
Vote ``no'' on this rule, and vote ``no'' on the bill relating to R&D
tax credits.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I stand steadfastly against not only the way
in which we have been conducting business with regard to the way we
report out rules, but also to both underlying bills for their partisan
posturing and failure to address the important issues facing the middle
class in this country.
We cannot continue to provide tax credits without establishing a
revenue offset, enact tax policies that favor a partisan agenda and
push us further away from needed comprehensive tax reform, or offer
legislative gifts to industry giants at the expense of the American
public.
[[Page H3407]]
Mr. Speaker, Memorial Day is next Monday. If we defeat the previous
question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up
Representative Brownley's Help Hire Our Heroes Act, H.R. 607.
H.R. 607 would reauthorize the Veterans Retraining Assistance
Program, which expired in March 2014. That program paid for veterans to
get training for high-demand occupations, and during its 3 years in
existence, it helped more than 76,000 veterans.
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; vote ``no'' on the underlying bills.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Florida, but I would
like to respond to a few of the comments.
The R&D tax credit has been overwhelmingly supported for the last 16
extensions, the last time garnering 378 votes. Only 46 Members voted
against the R&D tax credit.
The R&D tax credit will be passed again. In fact, the gentleman from
Michigan admitted, Mr. Speaker, that the vast majority of Democrats
will vote to extend the R&D tax credit. In fact, they will do it every
year for the next 10 years, like they have the last few years. When it
is done every year, they don't insist it is paid for.
If you will do it for 10 years in a row without paying for it--the
entire budget window--why don't we just all create some certainty for
our businesses so we can invest in high-tech jobs and growing our
economy, Mr. Speaker?
Let's create certainty for the American people. Let's pass the bill.
Let's pass the rule. Let's pass the previous question.
I think, unfortunately, the arguments from the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Speaker, really encourage cliff politics--high-stakes,
expiring legislation that the American people don't want. The American
people want us to create certainty. They want us to support jobs. They
want us to support our technological innovation in this country, Mr.
Speaker.
I would urge my colleagues to support the rule and support the
underlying bills, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support the Rule on H.R. 2262, the
Spurring Private Aerospace Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship Act of
2015 (the SPACE Act of 2015). And I thank Majority Leader McCarthy for
sponsoring this important legislation. The space community is well
served having Leader McCarthy as a champion.
This bill is the product of over three years of work. Congress
solicited input from nearly every stakeholder group. That is reflected
in the broad support that this bill has received.
From industry, to education groups, to grassroots citizen advocacy
groups, this bill has been praised by virtually every interested party.
The process to getting here was inclusive and exhaustive. The
Science, Space, and Technology Committee held numerous hearings on the
topic over the last three years.
On November 19, 2013, the Committee held a hearing on the commercial
space industry. On February 14, 2014, the Committee held a hearing on
updates to the Commercial Space Launch Act. On April 29, 2014, the
Committee held a hearing on the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA)
space traffic management proposal and orbital debris. On February 27,
2015, the Committee held a hearing on the Commercial Crew program.
Last October, staff formally submitted a draft to the minority.
Within the last two months, the majority and minority have worked to
write many of the provisions in the underlying bill.
For instance, Section 101, which deals with Consensus Standards, is
the result of bipartisan negotiations. The same can be said for Section
102, which calls for an update to the maximum probable loss calculation
under indemnification.
Section 103, which pertains to Launch Vehicle Flexibility, is
identical to the bipartisan provision sponsored by Senators Heinrich
and Rubio that easily passed the Senate Commerce Committee last year by
voice vote.
Section 104 clarifies the role of Government Astronauts and is almost
identical to the provision requested by the FAA and NASA.
The minority also played a role in writing Section 108 on Orbital
Traffic Management. Section 109 on State Commercial Spaceports also
addressed bipartisan requests.
Section 111 on the Streamlining of Commercial Space Launch Activities
is similar to language already in the Senate's bill, and Section 112
was the result of an amendment in Committee that earned bipartisan
support.
Title 2 of the bill focuses on Space Resource Exploration and
Utilization. As a standalone bill, it was the subject of a hearing last
September and it is cosponsored by both Republicans and Democrats. It
even has a Democratic champion on the Senate side, Senator Murray.
Title 3 of the bill addresses Commercial Remote Sensing and also
benefits from bipartisan co-sponsorship. When it was marked up in
Committee last week, it enjoyed unanimous support. The same can be said
of Title 4 of the bill that pertains to the Office of Space Commerce.
At the Committee's recent markup, eight amendments to the provisions
we are considering today were adopted--three of which were amendments
offered by Democrats.
The Rule before us today allows for consideration of five Democratic
amendments and two Republican amendments. The majority has gone out of
its way to include the minority in this process.
In fact, the Administration said in a statement that it, ``does not
oppose House passage of the bill''--a rarity for bills considered under
a Rule.
This bill facilitates a pro-growth environment for the developing
commercial space industry by encouraging private sector investment,
creating more stable and predictable regulatory conditions, and
improving safety.
The Act ensures American leadership in space and fosters the
development of advanced technologies. I urge my colleagues to support
this Rule as well as the underlying bill, and I thank the Majority
Leader once again for his initiative on this legislation.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the rule for H.R.
2262, the SPACE Act of 2015.
Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution states that
``The Congress shall have Power to promote the Progress of Science and
useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries . . .''
It does not say that the Congress shall have the right to ignore.
The United States space program has existed for over half a century
and my commitment to providing NASA with the resources to carry the
agency forward with its ambitious agenda of research, exploration, and
discovery is unwavering.
NASA continues to push the boundaries of what is possible, keeping
our Nation on the forefront of innovation and exploration.
It is the responsibility of this Congress to ensure that the future
of space exploration remains a part of our national destiny.
It inspires our children to look to the stars and dream of what they
too, one day, may achieve.
The Jackson Lee Amendments made in order by the Rules Committee are
intended to improve the Space Act.
My amendments are simple and will improve the bill.
1. Jackson Lee Amendments to H.R. 2262
This Jackson Lee Amendment Number 8, would facilitate the
participation of HBCU, Hispanic Serving Institutions, National Indian
institutions, in fellowships, work-study and employment opportunities
in the emerging commercial space industry.
My amendment would increase awareness among underrepresented groups
in STEM employment and education opportunities in the commercial space
industry.
One of the most enduring difficulties faced by underrepresented
populations in the STEM field is a lack of awareness and understanding
of the connection between STEM and employment opportunities.
In 2012, a survey found that despite the nation's growing demand for
more workers in science, technology, engineering, and math, the skills
gap among the largest ethnic and racial minorities groups remains
stubbornly wide.
Blacks and Latinos account for only 7 percent, of the STEM workforce
despite representing 28 percent of the U.S. population.
2. Jackson Lee Amendment on Minority and Women Owned
Businesses
The Jackson Lee Amendment requires that provisions of the bill that
address future legislation also lay the foundation for the commercial
space industry include work on how to effectively conduct outreach to
small business concerns owned and controlled by women and minorities.
I have worked hard to help small business owners to fully realize
their potential.
That is why I support entrepreneurial development programs, including
the Small Business Development Center and Women's Business Center
programs.
These initiatives provide counseling in a variety of critical areas,
including business plan development, finance, and marketing.
[[Page H3408]]
Outreach is key to developing healthy and diverse small businesses.
There are approximately 6 million minority owned businesses in the
United States, representing a significant aspect of our economy.
According to the most recent available Census data, minority owned
businesses employ nearly 6 million Americans and generate $1 trillion
dollars in economic output.
Women owned businesses have increased 20% between 2002 and 2007, and
currently total close to 8 million.
My home city of Houston, Texas, the home of the Johnson Space Center,
is also home to more than 60,000 women owned businesses, and more than
60,000 African American owned businesses.
Final Jackson Lee Amendment Seeks Funding To Continue Space
Exploration R&D
The taxpayer has invested in space exploration for decades.
This investment is reaping benefits for the commercial space industry
today.
3. The Jackson Lee Amendment not included in the Rule would
have provided revenue for research and development work
to continue on challenges that hinder manned and unmanned
space flight.
Many of the startup companies entering the space industry have few
resources to dedicate to basic research.
There are still critical areas of research that must be done to make
space flight as safe as commercial transportation systems are today.
Although commercial transportation is not 100 percent without risk,
it is much safer than it would have been without dedicated and focused
basic and applied research to address safety issues.
While the government supports the aspirations of companies large and
small to become part of the commercial space industry, it should still
be the responsibility of NASA to pursue research that can save lives
and improve space travel.
If the future we envision is one where thousands of businesses will
benefit from commercial and government space exploration and investment
efforts then investing today in tomorrow's economy makes good sense.
Although I believe the Jackson Lee Amendments will improve
the Bill, there exist troubling aspects of the bill:
First, it is regrettable that the SPACE Act will restrict the
``learning period'' of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
regulation of spacecraft.
This learning period should be extended for a shorter period than the
ten-year extension through 2025 included in the bill.
Second, a voluntary industry consensus standard would provide a
strategy that improves the overall safety of the industry as opposed to
performance-based regulations.
Finally, I have concerns about the ability of U.S. companies to move
forward with innovative space initiatives without authority to ensure
continuing supervision of these initiatives as delineated in the Outer
Space Treaty.
Thus, I hope we can all work together in addressing these troubling
aspects of the bill.
I ask my colleagues to vote for the Jackson Lee Amendments.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:
An amendment to H. Res. 273 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 7. 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.
607) to amend the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011 to extend
the Veterans Retraining Assistant Program, and for other
purposes. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs. 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. 8. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 607.
____
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. STIVERS. 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. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were 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 adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241,
nays 183, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 250]
YEAS--241
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
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
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)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
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
[[Page H3409]]
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--183
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
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
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--8
Capps
Chaffetz
Curbelo (FL)
Donovan
Frankel (FL)
Larsen (WA)
Tsongas
Wasserman Schultz
{time} 1349
Messrs. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico, TAKAI, and RUSH changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 250, I was not
present because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``nay.''
(By unanimous consent, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania was allowed to speak
out of order.)
moment of silence for those lost in the philadelphia train derailment
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, May 12, we had a
horrific train derailment crash in the city of Philadelphia. So first
off, our thoughts and prayers are with the eight men and women who lost
their lives and the over 200 who were injured.
I have never been more proud of the men and women who live and work
in the city of Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love and sisterly
affection. We had this major catastrophe at 9:15 at night. Within 4
minutes, our first responders--our police, our fire, Police
Commissioner Ramsey, Fire Commissioner Sawyer--were on the scene.
The scene was in total darkness, and we had volunteers from the
neighborhood who even joined in. Imagine, total darkness. The only
light was flashlights flashing back and forth.
I stand here as proud as I could be of the mayor of the city of
Philadelphia, Michael Nutter, who, from Tuesday until Sunday, was on
that scene constantly, orchestrating the administration people, moving
them around, consoling families, making sure that all were accounted
for, and even making sure that their belongings were given back to
them.
I can't be more proud of our hospitals and our universities.
Universities opened their doors for loved ones to come. And our
hospitals, the doctors, nurses, all the men and women who worked
there--there were doctors who worked 30 hours and went back home and
couldn't sleep and came back to work another 12 hours.
But most importantly, two things really struck me. Temple University
Hospital in the city of Philadelphia had a lot of the injured people
admitted to their hospital. The students who go to Temple University
heard about it, jumped on their bicycles, and rode down to assist all
those in the hospital, whether it be by pushing a gurney or whether it
would be consoling a family member or putting a family member with a
loved one.
And the neighbors, the neighbors ran out--again, in total darkness.
There were 200 people-plus injured. Neighbors ran through, helping out
through all the soot, picking them up, pulling them out of the trains,
bringing them into their house, bringing out water, going to a local
store and buying water, bringing towels, wiping them down.
One person said:
I am sorry I am in your home. I am full of soot, and I am
dirtying your rug and your couch.
And in response, the lady said:
That is okay. We can buy more couches, and we can buy more
things, more whatever we need to buy. But you can't buy your
health back. So we want to be here to be able to help you in
the best way we can.
I am honored to be standing here with my colleagues from Pennsylvania
and some others from throughout the country. Some lost a loved one.
I am extremely proud to recognize Chairman Jeff Denham and Ranking
Member Mike Capuano, who assisted me and toured the site with me. I
appreciate their concern, and I appreciate them being there.
So, Mr. Speaker, the best way we can honor these men and women is to
make sure this accident never again happens in the United States of
America.
With that, I ask for a moment of silence.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will
continue.
There was no objection.
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 is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 240,
noes 185, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 251]
AYES--240
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
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
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
[[Page H3410]]
Farenthold
Fincher
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
Guthrie
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
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
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
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--185
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
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
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
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
Massie
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
Ribble
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--7
Capps
Chaffetz
Deutch
Donovan
Hastings
Tsongas
Wasserman Schultz
{time} 1402
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.
____________________