[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 102 (Wednesday, June 24, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H4608-H4617]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2822, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016; PROVIDING
FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2042, RATEPAYER PROTECTION ACT OF 2015; AND
PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM JUNE 26, 2015, THROUGH
JULY 6, 2015
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 333 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 333
Resolved, That (a) 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. 2822) making appropriations for the Department
of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, 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
Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points
of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply
with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived.
(b) During consideration of the bill for amendment--
(1) each amendment, other than amendments provided for in
paragraph (2), shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent and
shall not be subject to amendment except as provided in
paragraph (2);
(2) no pro forma amendment shall be in order except that
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to
10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of
debate; and
(3) the chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord
priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member
offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read.
(c) When the committee rises and reports the bill back to
the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, 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.
2042) to allow for judicial review of any final rule
addressing carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil
fuel-fired electric utility generating units before requiring
compliance with such rule, and to allow States to protect
households and businesses from significant adverse effects on
electricity ratepayers or reliability. 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 Energy and Commerce. 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 114-20. 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 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. 3. It shall be in order without intervention of any
point of order to consider concurrent resolutions providing
for adjournment during the month of July, 2015.
Sec. 4. On any legislative day during the period from June
26, 2015, through July 6, 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. 5. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
{time} 1245
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 Colorado (Mr. Polis),
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 333 provides for a rule to
consider important bills that deal with our environment: the first,
H.R. 2822, the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2016; and the second, H.R. 2042,
the Ratepayer Protection Act of 2015. Each bill will be provided the
standard 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the majority and the
minority. Further, on each bill, the minority is granted the standard
motion to recommit, a chance to amend the legislation one final time
prior to its passage.
As with nearly all regular order appropriations bills that have come
to the floor under the Republican leadership, the Interior-EPA bill
will be considered under a modified open rule, allowing every Member of
this body the opportunity to come to the floor and offer amendments to
the bill that comply with the House budget rules.
H.R. 2042, the Ratepayer Protection Act, is given a structured rule
under the resolution before us today, with the Rules Committee making
in order five of the eight amendments offered during consideration of
the bill last evening. Of the amendments made in order, one is
bipartisan, three were offered by Democrats, and one was offered by a
Republican.
H.R. 2822, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2016, provides funding for
both the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection
Agency. This bill provides funding for many of the national parks and
recreational facilities throughout the United States. The bill includes
over $30 billion in base funding, decreasing the top line level by $246
million below fiscal year 2015 and cutting $3 billion from the
President's budget request.
This spending reduction is necessary to rein in an out-of-control
Environmental Protection Agency that is moving at breakneck speed to
regulate every aspect of our economy. Following the failure of the
House and Senate Democrats to get the disastrous Waxman-Markey cap-and-
trade legislation to President Obama's desk in 2009, Lisa Jackson and,
now, Gina McCarthy, both administrators of the Environmental Protection
Agency, have moved forward with regulatory regimes under the guise of
the Clean Air Act to go around Congress to regulate carbon after the
American people explicitly rose up and said do not do this.
The Energy and Commerce Committee has held countless hearings and
markups to address the out-of-control efforts by the Environmental
Protection Agency and has taken over the past few years to push
President Obama's harmful environmental policies onto a populace that
has rejected those same policies at the ballot box. From carbon dioxide
to ozone to every stream, puddle, ditch, pond in America, the
Environmental Protection Agency
[[Page H4609]]
will not rest until it has regulatory control over every aspect of
every life in America.
The appropriations bill before us is an important step toward reining
in such a power-hungry agency. The bill contains prohibitions on the
Department of the Interior's attempts to regulate hydraulic fracturing,
a process that President Obama's own Environmental Protection Agency
recently stated has not resulted in any significant environmental or
health harms. It includes a provision preventing the Environmental
Protection Agency from proposing new ozone standards until at least 85
percent of the country is able to meet current standards, which would
seem to be a reasonable request. It prohibits the Environmental
Protection Agency from moving forward with new greenhouse gas
regulations, regulations that the American people have never supported.
And it prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency from moving
forward with regulating every stream and pond in the country, an issue
that the Supreme Court has rejected and that farmers and landowners all
across America have risen up to oppose.
Even more than the funding levels in this bill, passing the House
Interior Appropriations bill will keep the Environmental Protection
Agency from doing further damage to the United States economy than has
already been done by this administration. Mr. Speaker, I will just
point out, we were greeted with the news that in the first quarter of
this year, the economy actually contracted by 0.2 percent. That is not
the direction that we need to go.
The second bill contained in today's rule is H.R. 2042, the Ratepayer
Protection Act of 2015, which does address the Environmental Protection
Agency's job-killing carbon rules on existing power plants. The bill
allows for judicial review of any final rule pertaining to greenhouse
gas emissions before requiring compliance with such a rule and allows
States to protect households and businesses from significant adverse
effects on electricity ratepayers or reliability. This seems like a
reasonable ask, that the EPA's own rule, which we know will be
litigated anyway, not go into effect until the courts have had a final
say on whether or not the Environmental Protection Agency actually
followed the law.
The Environmental Protection Agency's proposed regulation on
greenhouse gases, a regulation that the Democrats couldn't achieve
through legislation, places different limits on different States,
allowing the Environmental Protection Agency to pick winners and losers
in the carbon wars.
If a State does not comply with the strict guidelines that the
Environmental Protection Agency sets out for its electricity market,
then the EPA will force its own Federal plan on the State, driving up
the cost to ratepayers exponentially.
The EPA's own estimates of this rule--just the rule, without any
mention of the other disastrously expensive rules that it is currently
proposing, such as the ozone regulations--suggest that the carbon rule
for existing power plants will impose annual costs of $5.5 billion to
$7.5 billion by 2020, and almost $9 billion by 2030. All of those costs
will be passed on to every American who pays an electricity bill.
Of course, as we have seen in previous rules, the Environmental
Protection Agency consistently underestimates the cost of its rules to
hide the ball from the American people about the true damage that is
actually being proposed by the Agency. Outside estimates put the cost
of this one regulation at upwards of well over $360 billion to almost
$500 billion between 2017 and 2031. That level of harm to the United
States economy is insane after seeing such a slow recovery under the
current President, but it is exactly what Administrator Gina McCarthy
is proposing.
State Governors, regulators, and other stakeholders have submitted
thousands of comments on this rule, explaining how difficult it will be
to implement and prevent rates from increasing, but those pleas appear
to have hit a dead end. The Environmental Protection Agency is moving
forward with these rules, and this bill before us presents one of the
great opportunities to slow them down before irreversible damage is
done to the economy.
Mr. Speaker, the House is moving forward with important legislation
today to make the government more accountable. I look forward to both
bills having a full debate on the House floor after the passage of
today's rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the
rule to allow for consideration of legislation that would reauthorize
the Export-Import Bank for 7 years. The Export-Import Bank allows
American businesses to compete in global markets and supports hundreds
of thousands of jobs.
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 Colorado?
There was no objection.
{time} 1300
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, we have one legislative day until the
expiration of the Export-Import Bank's authorization. We are going to
get to talk about this EPA rule in a few minutes, but there are many
Members on my side of the aisle who want to bring forward in the form
of a previous question, the only procedural way that we can advance
this important piece of legislation to the floor before the House goes
home in July, to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.
Reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank would strengthen our
Nation's economy. It would provide stability and certainty for American
businesses. The Export-Import Bank assists tens of thousands of small-
and medium-sized businesses throughout the country. In fact, nearly 90
percent of Export-Import's transactions are with small businesses, and
the Bank directly supports 164,000 private sector jobs at over 3,300
companies.
In August, I was honored to receive a visit from Export-Import Bank
President Fred Hochberg, who came to my district to highlight the kinds
of jobs and companies that Export-Import really benefits and discuss
ways that it can work together with some of our local Colorado small
businesses. Together, we visited Boulder-based Droplet Measurement
Technologies, which was named the Export-Import Bank's 2015 Small
Business Exporter of the Year for its work in cloud and aerosol
measurements. Roughly two-thirds of this small company's sales come
from exports.
Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of growing business that Export-Import
Bank supports--export-related jobs so important in today's global
economy--not just the brand names, not big companies, but the types of
small-and mid-sized firms that need and deserve our support to compete
on the global market.
FiberLok in Fort Collins is a specialty-based printing company in my
district that provides heat transfer graphic products like computer
mouses and drink coaster rugs. It is family-owned with 70 employees,
and about 40 percent of its business is international. They sell
worldwide, including Germany, Mexico, and the U.K. In 2008, the company
discovered Export-Import Bank through a direct mail campaign that
targeted small businesses, and they have been using the small business
multibuyer credit insurance since, and through that, with the help of
that program, export sales have grown 15 to 20 percent, and the Bank
has supported over 2.7 million of FiberLok's exports.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are some on the other side of
the aisle that have a philosophical problem with the existence of the
charter of the authorization for this Bank. If that is the case, surely
unilateral disarmament is not the solution. Perhaps instruct our trade
negotiators to remove backdoor subsidies at other export-import banks
that other nations have, but as long as these types of efforts are
permitted under WTO and trade rules, and as long as other nations
support the export economy in their countries through programs like the
Export-Import Bank, why would we want to unilaterally disarm? It makes
no sense and puts American businesses and American exporters at a
disadvantage and would lead to the outsourcing of even more jobs
overseas.
[[Page H4610]]
Financing assistance from this Bank--which, incidentally, costs zero
money to taxpayers--helps ensure that U.S. companies are competing on a
level playing field. Canada, China, and Japan, over 60 other nations,
have similar banks that extend even more export financing to their
businesses.
Mr. Speaker, there is strong, bipartisan support for the renewal of
the Bank's charter. I urge every Member who supports that to help
defeat the previous question so we can offer our amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the
great State of California (Ms. Maxine Waters), to discuss the previous
question and the Export-Import Bank.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank
the gentleman from Colorado, as well as Leader Pelosi and Whip Hoyer,
for continuing to fight for the survival of the Export-Import Bank.
Mr. Speaker, with just 1 day left for Congress to act before the Ex-
Im Bank shuts down, I am shocked that my Republican colleagues are
planning to leave town without even considering legislation to review
its charter. Democrats will not sit idly by. That is why I rise today
to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question in order to force
a vote on legislation sponsored by myself, Mr. Heck, Ms. Moore, Mr.
Hoyer, and nearly every other Democrat in this House to renew and
reform the Export-Import Bank's charter for the long term.
Over the past 5 years, the Export-Import Bank has created or
sustained an estimated 1.3 million jobs, and it has returned $6.9
billion to the American people over the past two decades. But next
Tuesday, that record of success will be stopped in its tracks. The
Export-Import Bank will stop creating jobs and supporting our small
businesses. It will stop returning profits to the Treasury, and it will
stop helping to make our businesses more competitive.
Failure to act hands countries like China, Russia, and countless
others that have their own version of the bank a significant victory--
at the hands of American workers' products and businesses. But we
haven't given up yet. Today we are giving the broad base of Democrats
and Republicans who support the Bank an opportunity to cast a vote in
favor of keeping this engine of job creation and economic growth alive.
Last week my Republican colleagues who support the Bank failed to
stand up for its survival. But with just 1 more day for Congress to
save the Bank from shutting down, I am afraid that those who claim to
support the Export-Import Bank but refuse to stand up and do so do not
truly support the Bank or the jobs it creates.
Mr. Speaker, businesses need to know that our government will stand
up for them, not work to undermine them.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holding). The time of the gentlewoman
has expired.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 20
seconds.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to
heed the advice of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, all
of whom supported the Export-Import Bank.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to myself.
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Chair that the issue under
consideration today before the House of Representatives is H. Res. 333,
which provides for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2822, making
appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for
other purposes; and further providing for the consideration of H.R.
2042, to allow for judicial review of any final rule addressing carbon
dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric utility
generating units before requiring compliance with such rule, and to
allow States to protect households and businesses from significant
adverse effects on electricity ratepayers or reliability.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, my friend, Dr. Burgess, has just made an observation,
that this resolution is about the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Subcommittee Appropriations bill. I will tell Mr. Speaker, as
you know--and the American people, I am sure, know--that that Agency is
funded through September 30 of this year, which means we have months to
go before it will run out of funds.
The other bill that he mentions, of course, as you know, is about a
proposal, not a rule. It may be a rule at some point in time, but it is
a proposal which has no absolute definite need to be done today or next
week or next month.
However, Mr. Speaker, the Export-Import Bank, if we do not act by
tomorrow, loses its authority to loan money or to support--not to loan
money, but to support the selling of goods from America by American
workers to those abroad.
We just went through a trade debate which was about jobs and whether
or not it was going to undermine jobs in America. Now, my previous
colleague, Ms. Waters, mentioned President Reagan, she mentioned
President Bush, and she mentioned President Clinton. But the person who
says we are going to lose jobs if we don't pass the Export-Import Bank
is the Speaker of this House, Mr. Speaker, John Boehner of Ohio. He
says, if we don't pass this, we are immediately going to start losing
jobs--John Boehner, Speaker of the House from Ohio.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring up H.R.
1031--a bill to protect thousands of American jobs by preventing the
Export-Import Bank from shutting down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise that all time has
been yielded for the purpose of debate only.
Does the gentleman from Texas yield for the purpose of this unanimous
consent request?
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I do not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas does not yield.
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, again, I will just remind the House that
what is under consideration is a rule resolution, H. Res. 333, for
consideration of the appropriations bill for the Department of the
Interior and H.R. 2042 to allow for judicial review of any final rule
addressing carbon dioxide emissions.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Heck), a champion of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank for the
purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
House bring up H.R. 1031, which is within its power to do--a bill to
protect thousands of American jobs by preventing the shutting down of
the Export-Import Bank.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Texas yield for the
purpose of this unanimous consent request?
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate my earlier announcement
that all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only, and I do not
yield time for any other purpose.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas does not yield.
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Grijalva) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House
bring up H.R. 1031--a bill to protect thousands of American jobs by
preventing the Export-Import Bank from being shut down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Texas does not yield for that purpose. Therefore, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Ashford) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
[[Page H4611]]
Mr. ASHFORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House
bring up H.R. 1031--a bill to protect thousands of American jobs by
preventing the Export-Import Bank from shutting down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al
Green) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues, and I ask
unanimous consent that the House bring up H.R. 1031--a bill to protect
thousands of American jobs by preventing the Export-Import Bank from
shutting down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Tonko) for the purpose of a unanimous consent.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring
up H.R. 1031--a bill to protect thousands of American jobs by
preventing the Export-Import Bank from shutting down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Sherman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House
bring up H.R. 1031--a bill to protect hundreds of thousands of American
jobs by preventing the shutdown of the Ex-Im Bank.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Maxine Waters), the ranking member of the Committee on Financial
Services, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the House bring up H.R. 1031--a bill to protect thousands of
American jobs by preventing the Export-Import Bank from shutting down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Brendan F. Boyle) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, as you might be
able to predict, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring up H.R.
1031--a bill that would protect thousands of American jobs by
preventing the shutdown of the Export-Import Bank.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, we were hoping at least Mr. Boyle's would be
accepted. But, Mr. Speaker, I yield to another Member of Congress from
California (Mr. Cardenas), a leader in the fight to reauthorize the
Export-Import Bank, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House
bring up H.R. 1031--a bill to protect thousands of American jobs by
preventing the Export-Import Bank from shutting down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, for the
purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House
bring up H.R. 1031--a bill to protect thousands of American jobs by
preventing the Export-Import Bank from shutting down. It is most
important in my district.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to myself.
Again, I just want to underscore that the issue under consideration
on the House floor today is to consider H. Res. 333, to provide for
consideration of the bill, H.R. 2822, making appropriations for the
Department of the Interior, environment and related agencies, and to
provide for consideration of the bill, H.R. 2042, to allow for judicial
review of any final rule addressing carbon dioxide emissions.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Heck), a leader in the effort to reauthorize the
Export-Import Bank.
Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am going to get an enormous
frustration off my chest today, the obsessive-compulsive focus of this
Chamber on the Ts: trade, trade promotion authority, Trans-Pacific
Partnership, and trade adjustment authority. This view that we can
distill our entire Nation's future trading prospects to one trade
agreement or the TPA leading up to it is wrongheaded, it is myopic, and
it does not serve our self-interest. The fact of the matter is, in
order for us to be successful in a global economy, we must be much more
complex and nuanced in our view.
{time} 1315
Infrastructure--we don't even spend two-thirds of the money generated
by the harbor maintenance tax, which is generated by trade, on
improving the ports so that we can have more trade. Where is that
issue?
The International Monetary Fund, 5 years hanging loose the reform. We
are Nero; Rome is burning. No reforms to the IMF--and what is the
consequence? This is real. This isn't abstract. I didn't make this up.
China forms the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank; Brazil, Russia,
India, China, and South Africa form the BRICS Bank--all of this while
we sit and watch Rome burn.
Lastly, the Export-Import Bank is a deficit-cutting, job-creating
machine--$6 billion to reduce our deficit, 164,000 thousand jobs in the
country just last year. Ninety-five percent, as has so often been said,
of the world's population lives outside the borders of the great
country of the United States of America.
If we want to keep our middle class, we are going to have to learn
how to sell into their middle class and engage in global trade, but it
is more complex than just one trade agreement or IMF or what we do with
the infrastructure investment. It is all of these things.
Yes, at the top of that list, the Export-Import Bank, a deficit-
cutting, job-creating machine, we need to reauthorize the Export-Import
Bank--1 day left--because the layoff notices are going out next week.
People will lose that which they value more than anything in life,
save their family; and that is the opportunity to be self-sufficient
and provide for themselves.
Ladies and gentlemen, I beseech you, vote against the previous
question, bring up H.R. 1031, reauthorize the Export-Import Bank in the
name of cutting deficits and creating jobs.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, you have heard what we will bring up if we
defeat the previous question. You will now hear what this body under
this rule has chosen to consider instead--a bill that, as Mr. Hoyer
said, could be done any time and a bill that is bad.
To explain that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Grijalva), the distinguished member of the Committee on Natural
Resources.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
I rise in opposition to House Resolution 333.
The Interior Appropriations bill is a disaster, not only because it
would continue the pattern of underfunding core Department of Interior
programs and ignoring climate change, but also because it is littered
with partisan legislative riders that don't belong in an appropriations
bill.
This rule does nothing to improve the bill, and even includes waivers
to protect these illegitimate riders. Republicans make the rules, but
through this appropriations bill, they seek to break their own rules
and sneak significant legislative changes into this spending bill.
The riders protected by this rule would make species extinction more
likely, close the courthouse door to American citizens, and grease the
wheels for Big Business to make private profits from public resources.
[[Page H4612]]
These are all terrible ideas, but they are terrible ideas that should
be considered in the Natural Resources Committee, not snuck into an
Interior spending bill.
I have the honor of serving as the ranking member of the Natural
Resources Committee, and I would tell my colleagues: we have hearing
rooms and a full staff, and if you support delisting endangered species
or prohibiting judicial review of resource decisions or giving away
public resources to wealthy companies, you should put your name on a
bill and come over to 1324 in the Longworth Building for a hearing.
While I cannot speak for the chairman of the Natural Resources
Committee, as ranking member, I cannot agree to cede jurisdiction over
management of our Federal natural resources to appropriators, and I
cannot support a rule designed to allow it.
Even though the best available science indicates otherwise, section
121 of the underlying bill would direct the Secretary to reissue two
final rules removing wolves in Wyoming and the Great Lakes from the
endangered species list.
Another rider would make it more difficult to protect the habitat of
the threatened northern long-eared bat. We aren't the experts. We
should not interfere with the species listing and recovery processes at
all, let alone interfere through an appropriations bill where the
merits of such proposals cannot be given any appropriate consideration.
This is why the House rules prohibit these riders, and this rule should
not protect them.
Another awful rider would block the Fish and Wildlife Service from
cracking down on illegal ivory trade within the U.S. Poaching of
elephants and trafficking of illegal ivory is currently at an all-time
25-year high here in the U.S., and the U.S. is one of the major markets
for the sale of illegal ivory.
Section 120 of the underlying bill would restrict our ability to
regulate the trade of elephant ivory in the U.S. and will directly
contribute to elephant slaughter. House rules prohibit these kinds of
sneaky, partisan riders in spending bills for a good reason, and we
should not adopt a rule to protect these provisions.
If these provisions are so toxic that they can only be passed by
waiving House rules, they shouldn't be passed at all.
Either way, the question should be considered in the authorizing
committee, not in an appropriations bill and not in this rule.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from Arizona that this
appropriations bill is coming to the floor, as has been the custom
during the Republican majority, under a modified open rule, which means
that any Member is able to bring an amendment to the floor of the House
and have it heard.
This, of course, includes limitation amendments that would be heard
at the end of the reading of the bill that would allow for the striking
of any of the provisions that he finds objectionable. Then all that is
necessary for the gentleman to do is to convince 218 Members of this
body to vote with him on an amendment, and he will be able to
accomplish his heart's desire.
A modified open rule is a good process, and it does allow the will of
the House to be heard on this bill. I look forward to us affirming the
previous question, passing the rule to allow the bill to be heard, and
then we can get on to the business at hand.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think the problem with the idea of the gentleman from Texas is that
the base bill is so bad, it could take this body weeks or months to fix
it. Meanwhile, we are 1 day away from the Export-Import Bank's
reauthorization.
At least let's get that done, and then we are happy to begin the work
of trying to fix this terrible bill. Although, again, it might be more
productive just to defeat it, send it back to Appropriations, and have
them come up with a better base bill.
I am proud to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As he
points out, we are 1 legislative day away from the end of the
authorization of the Ex-Im Bank.
American businesses are already losing contracts as foreign companies
must decide whether to structure themselves around American equipment
or whether to buy equipment from another source. That foreign source
offers stable export promotion authority financing provided by the
governments of Germany, Japan, China, et cetera; whereas, we dawdle
here.
The purpose of a rule is to decide how the House will devote its time
here on the floor. The most pressing matter before us is the Export-
Import Bank. That is why we should defeat the rule and focus the House
on the most pressing matter, and we should allow the House to work its
will. A majority of this body wants to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank, but
instead, we are being held hostage by a group inside only one of the
two caucuses.
I gave 100 speeches for George McGovern. I am proud of that. We were
accused of unilateral disarmament being our platform. This is a
platform for unilateral disarmament because this is a platform that
says Germany, Japan, and China will provide concessionary financing to
push their exports, and we will be disarmed in the world of business.
The Export-Import Bank makes money. The CBO concludes that; generally
accepted accounting principles conclude that. The enemies of the Bank
have concocted a fantasy accounting system, and only under that system,
used nowhere else, is there any argument that the Export-Import Bank
does not make money.
We have hundreds of thousands of American jobs at stake. They should
not be sacrificed on the alter of a new religion. Ayn Rand is not a
deity; ``Fountainhead'' is not Holy Scripture, and we need to make
practical decisions in the real world where we face real competition
from real competitors.
That is why we need to focus the attention of this House on today's
most pressing issue, the reauthorization of Ex-Im Bank.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Ashford), a leader in the effort to
reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.
Mr. ASHFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
I rise today to express my support for the reauthorization of the
Export-Import Bank.
The Ex-Im Bank is an independent, self-sustaining executive branch
agency with one mission, to foster American job growth by helping
American companies with the tools they need to compete in the global
marketplace.
In short, the Ex-Im Bank provides the business community the
certainty it needs to compete in overseas markets and grow jobs at
home.
Why am I so supportive of the Ex-Im Bank and its reauthorization? In
my district alone, in the month of May, the Ex-Im Bank provided $3.8
million worth of Nebraska's export goods into the global marketplace,
companies as large as Valmont Industries, one of the largest
manufacturers of center pivot irrigation systems in the world, and
companies as small as Volcanic Peppers, that in a small kitchen
produced hot sauce that is exported to Australia.
In fiscal year 2014, the Ex-Im Bank supported approximately $107
million in Nebraska exports, 49 percent of which went to Nebraska small
businesses.
Since 2007, the Bank has supported $230 million in exports from 52
Iowa companies and $550 million in exports from 39 Nebraska companies.
This translates into American private sector jobs in every district of
this country.
In real terms, the Ex-Im Bank helps to level the playing field for
both large and small businesses who export products abroad.
Simply put, there is no rational reason, Mr. Speaker, for allowing
American products and American goods to have a disadvantage in the
global marketplace.
Congress must reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank immediately, and I am
committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
make this happen.
[[Page H4613]]
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear what we would like to do, what
Democrats would like to do, like the probusiness Members of this House
would try to do, we want to, with 1 legislative day left, bring forward
a reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank for the reasons that have
been made abundantly clear by my Democratic colleagues and I know an
idea that is shared by many, perhaps less outspoken, Members on your
side of the aisle who also support reauthorizing the Export-Import
Bank.
Let's have a clean vote. If we defeat the previous question, that is
exactly what we will bring forward, a 7-year authorization that I
believe will pass this body.
Now, let's talk about what this House is choosing to do instead under
these rules--two bills that are not urgent, are not timely, both of
which would need Presidential vetoes: the Ratepayer Protection Act of
2015, which I will talk about, which, again, will go nowhere, even if
it gets out of both chambers, will get a Presidential veto and won't
have two-thirds in this body to override; and Interior Appropriations,
which needs to be done, but could be done next week, while we are up
against a deadline of the expiration of the Export-Import Bank.
The Ratepayer Protection Act pertains to the recently proposed clean
power plan, which establishes emission guidelines for States to follow
in developing plans to control carbon pollution from existing coal and
natural gas-fired power plants.
Like so many Presidential initiatives, it stems out of the
President's legitimate authority to act in areas under his statutory
authority when this body fails to act.
I applaud the President for using his existing executive powers on
immigration. I applaud the President for using his existing executive
powers for a clean power plan to work with the States and the EPA.
{time} 1330
What this bill would do, however, is suspend the implementation of
the clean power plan and extend all compliance and submission deadlines
until a judicial review can be completed, already in process.
On this point, let me make one thing very clear, that there is no
existent rule and that the proposed clean power plan is a proposal.
Let's give the executive branch the opportunity to at least come
forward with a final proposal before this body decides that it somehow
wants to invalidate that very proposal.
I have discussed this proposal with many folks in my district, and
there are issues that need to be worked out to make this regulation
feasible. I have talked to and heard from rural electric utilities and
from many others, and we all want to make sure that ratepayers are not
detrimentally impacted, but the answer is not to cut the process short.
That is why developers are actually working with the EPA through a
public input process, which includes rural electric utilities and
others, an unprecedented reach of outreach opportunities that the EPA
is doing, including in my district.
They are saying that they want to amend this proposed rule to make it
work better. If a majority of this body doesn't like the final result,
then it is time to talk about how we want to amend it and how this body
would rather deal with emissions and carbon reduction.
There are plenty of other opportunities. Several years ago, this body
considered a cap-and-trade program. I am a cosponsor of a bill with Mr.
Delaney that would implement a carbon tax and would use the income from
that to reduce the corporate tax rate and reduce the tax burden on
American businesses.
There are plenty of good ideas out there, but let's at least see what
the administration and the EPA come up with and then respond to its
final proposal with meaningful legislation to address our carbon
emissions.
Passing this bill now would prematurely undermine the EPA's
collaborative effort, instead of encouraging them to involve multiple
stakeholders in reducing carbon emissions. Under current law, the EPA
is required to develop and implement a Federal plan for any State that
fails to submit its own State plan.
This means that the passage of this bill would overturn that existing
requirement in the Clean Air Act as it pertains to the clean power
plan, which means the State would find itself in a place in which, if
it fails to utilize the flexibility this rule provides, it might have a
plan that they have not been part of forming.
I urge my colleagues to reflect on a position that not only
disregards science but that runs in opposition to business, to the
religious community, and to our national and global security. Congress
can constructively weigh in on reducing carbon emissions, and I
encourage this body to do so.
There are a number of great bills that would provide a statutory
mechanism to reduce our carbon emissions. Instead of going that route,
this body is saying that we don't even want to see what the President
comes up with or what the EPA comes up with. We want to invalidate it
before they even finalize it. We want to invalidate the hard work of
listening to rural electric utilities; of listening to ratepayer
groups; and, instead, throw it all out because, somehow, politicians in
Washington know better. That is simply not the right answer, and the
American people will not stand for it.
Let's talk about the other bill that the Republicans are bringing
forth under this rule instead of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank--
the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
First of all, I always try to talk about what is good in a bill. I do
want to commend the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee
for including the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, or PILT.
As a Representative of a district that is 62 percent owned by the
Federal Government and, therefore, untaxable by our local taxing
jurisdictions, I know how important it is to ensure the sustainability
of our county programs, particularly those that affect our Federal
lands; but much of the remainder of the bill and the reasoning for my
opposition to it is the drastic approach it takes to nearly every other
environmental, energy, and animal welfare issue facing our Nation.
The bill fails to deal with the issue of fire sharing, which is a
mechanism utilized that takes money from the Forest Service and gives
it to emergency response systems in the wake of wildfires. This limits
the Forest Service's resources and capabilities that could be used for
the protection of the watershed and for the insurance of access and
accountability of maintenance on Forest Service lands, especially those
like some in my district that are affected by forest fires.
This bill sets backward priorities for the Bureau of Land Management,
funding the continuation and expansion of oil and gas permitting when
it doesn't facilitate the zoning of solar or wind projects as my
bipartisan bill with Mr. Gosar would do.
The National Park Service, facing a backlog of over $11 billion, is
drastically cut under this bill. The bill also fails to address the
fact that offshore oil and gas operations require an inspection fee
while onshore wells do not.
This bill fails to address the looming expiration of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, which helps American citizens, businesses,
homeowners, and communities protect important lands and resources.
It also includes, as Mr. Grijalva pointed out, a number of policy
riders, any one of which would be grounds for a veto by the President
of the United States. It fails to adequately fund the Environmental
Protection Agency, and it circumvents its ability to enforce and ensure
protections granted to critical species under the Endangered Species
Act.
This bill needs a lot of work. I suggest we reject it, send it back
to the Appropriations Committee, and let them come up with a more
meaningful effort to fund our Department of the Interior, a goal that
all of us share.
I also urge my colleagues to reject the Ratepayer Protection Act of
2015, a bill that seeks to proactively invalidate the process of
listening, as the Environmental Protection Agency has done, to many
stakeholders across my district and across this country.
[[Page H4614]]
Instead, Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues to defeat the
previous question so that, with 1 day remaining, we can move to
reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, protect over 130,000 American jobs,
help American small businesses compete in an increasingly global
economy, and grow our export-related economy in Colorado and across the
Nation.
I encourage my colleagues to reject the previous question and reject
the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
It was 6 years ago this week. I don't know if many people remember
the activities on the House floor 6 years ago this week, but in June of
2009, right before we left for the July 4 recess, the then-Speaker of
the House, Nancy Pelosi, brought forward to this floor a bill.
The bill was called Waxman-Markey. It was the cap-and-trade bill. The
bill had come through our Committee on Energy and Commerce. I thought
it was a dead duck when it left there, but that bill was pushed through
to the floor at the end of June 2009.
Madam Speaker, I don't know that I need to remind you that, in 2009,
right after the 2008 election, the Republicans were deeply in the
minority. People talked about the fact that the Republicans were so far
in the minority that 40 years in the wilderness actually sounded like
the best case scenario for House Republicans; but something happened,
and it began in that last week of June 2009.
Now, a lot of people will credit the change in the House majority to
the President's healthcare law--and, indeed, it was ill-advised; and,
indeed, it did upset a lot of people very quickly--but prior to that,
even before we began having the big debates on the Affordable Care
Act--the big debates on what became ObamaCare--the then-Speaker of the
House brought to the floor of this House Waxman-Markey.
When people started to look at it, Waxman-Markey, we started to get
phone calls. People said: ``I can't sell my house unless the Department
of Energy certifies it as reaching certain levels of energy efficiency.
How am I supposed to be able to do that? That is not a free society.
That is not a free country when I am prohibited from selling the one
possession that I had used to accumulate dollars in my estate over my
entire life, and I can't sell it without permission from the Department
of Energy.''
People were legitimately asking questions about what this cap-and-
trade bill will do.
Madam Speaker, I have got to tell you that there are times in this
body when there is one of those moments when the incandescent lightbulb
goes off. One of those was last night. We were sitting in the Rules
Committee, and we were hearing testimony from two Members from
Kentucky, one in the majority and one in the minority.
The one in the majority is bringing the bill that we have before us,
H.R. 2042, the Ratepayer Protection Act. Mr. Whitfield of Kentucky was
explaining what the bill would do and the protections the bill would
provide. The other Member from Kentucky, a member of the minority,
said, because of the failure of the legislative process, the President
was required to act, and this is part of the President's Climate Action
Plan.
What the H? A failure of the legislative process?
Madam Speaker, I would submit that the legislative process functioned
as intended when Speaker Pelosi brought Waxman-Markey to the floor of
this House and this House passed that bill. We went back to our
districts that weekend, and I will tell you what we caught.
We caught unmitigated holy ``you know what'' because people were so
incensed at the freedoms that Waxman-Markey and the cap-and-trade
program would take away from them.
When the gentleman last night said it was a failure of the
legislative process and that the President had to act, it was exactly
the performance of the legislative process that delivered us from a
very bad proposition.
What happened after that? Because the country was in such a
convulsion about what the House had done, the visceral and immediate
reaction of the people of the United States was: ``Hold the phone; we
don't want what they are doing.''
The Senate, which was fully invested in passing a cap-and-trade
bill--you had Senators who thought cap-and-trade was the be-all and
end-all, and that was the reason they were in the United States
Senate--didn't bring it up. It never came up for a vote.
Here was a situation in which the Democrats had--I don't remember
what--a 55-seat majority on us here in the House of Representatives and
a 60-vote--filibuster-proof--majority over in the Senate, and they
couldn't get this done. They couldn't get this done because the people
said: ``No. No. Don't do this to me.''
The legislative process worked. The Senate said, ``I haven't got the
courage to do this right before the 2010 election,'' and the
proposition died at the end of the session that concluded on December
31, 2010. I would just submit that that is a good thing.
Here we have before us a bill today to provide, in some measure, some
of the protections about things that people were worried about 6 years
ago, but it is precisely because we were where we were 6 years ago that
we are now considering a bill that will hold back some of the
rulemaking authority from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Madam Speaker, under today's rule, we are providing for the
consideration of two important bills, bills that prevent the
Environmental Protection Agency from doing irreversible damage to our
economy through dozens of ill-advised regulations that Administrator
McCarthy is looking to push on the American people before President
Obama leaves the White House in January 2017.
The bills are thoughtful responses to one of the most egregious
agencies in the administration, and I look forward to a full debate for
that reason.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 333 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 6. 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 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. 7. 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
[[Page H4615]]
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. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Hartzler). 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. POLIS. Madam 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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243,
nays 181, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 379]
YEAS--243
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
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
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
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--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
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
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
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--9
Clyburn
Courtney
Delaney
Hanna
Hinojosa
Kelly (MS)
Napolitano
Payne
Sarbanes
{time} 1408
Mr. CARSON of Indiana changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. NEUGEBAUER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, June 24th, 2015, I was
absent during rollcall No. 379. Had I been present, I would have voted
``nay'' on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 333--Rule
providing for consideration of both H.R. 2042--Ratepayer Protection Act
of 2015 and H.R. 2822--Department of the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. BARTON was allowed to speak out of order.)
54th Annual Congressional Baseball Game
Mr. BARTON. Madam Speaker, I rise with an extremely heavy heart to,
once again, have to congratulate my good friend Mike Doyle, the manager
of the Democratic baseball team, for another victory. It is sad, but
true. Sad, but true.
On June 11, the Republicans and the Democrats played the Annual
Congressional Baseball Game. It was a spirited game, but for the
seventh year in a row, Mr. Doyle's team won. I don't know how to say
that.
I will say that our team is back. Mark Walker, our MVP from North
Carolina, pitched a good game. He struck out Cedric Richmond, which I
think is probably the first time Cedric has not gotten a hit.
We had new blood: Mr. Costello, Mr. Moolenaar, and several others. Of
course, we had our stalwarts: John Shimkus; Kevin Brady; our whip,
Steve Scalise.
So we played a good game, but the Democrats deserved to win. They
beat us, 5-20.
[[Page H4616]]
I will say that it was a pretty low blow to have the President of the
United States come and interrupt the game, take away our momentum right
when we had a big rally.
I am very proud of the Republican team, but I do want to congratulate
Mike Doyle and the Democrats.
I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. First off, I want to thank my
good friend, Joe Barton. Joe, you know, you used the tools that are at
your disposal.
This was a great game. It was good. I think all the fans were treated
to a very competitive game this year. We had almost 10,000 people
attend the game this year.
As we all know, the real winners here are our charities. This game
helps raise money for the Washington Boys & Girls Clubs, the Washington
Literacy Council, and the Nationals Dream Foundation. I am happy to
report, after expenses, we were able to write checks in excess of
$100,000 to each of the three charities. So those are the big winners
of the game.
This was a hard-fought game. In the last 3 years that we have played
this game, our team has made only one error. We made that this game,
but I think the difference in the score was that we made the plays in
the field.
Both pitchers were outstanding. Your new pitcher, Mark, we weren't
used to that knuckle ball and some of those curves. He kept us off
balance, and he pitched a brilliant game. I believe you guys actually
had one more hit than we did. You had six and we had five.
Cedric Richmond, coming off of shoulder surgery, pitched a gutsy game
for seven innings. And I should also mention that, after striking out,
he hit a double over the center fielder's head, just to throw that in.
I want to also note Joe Donnelly, our first baseman, made some
unbelievable plays at first base that, I think, saved the game for us.
And then, as always, anytime I ask Linda Sanchez to put a batting
helmet on, she gets a hit. So those three individuals share our team
MVPs.
Also, there are lots of ways to contribute, and Eric Swalwell stole
three bases for us and scored. He did it all on the base pads, and he
deserves some notice for that, too.
Joe, I just want to say it was a great game. I want to thank you for
how hard your team fought, and we look forward to a competitive game
next year.
We know some day, you know, the shoe will be on the other foot. But
for the past 7 years, we are kind of enjoying this. So God bless.
Mr. BARTON. Madam Speaker, I want to thank leadership on both sides:
our Speaker, John Boehner; our majority leader, Kevin McCarthy; and our
whip, Steve Scalise, who played in the game. On their side, Ms. Pelosi,
Mr. Hoyer, and Mr. Clyburn were all there. So both leadership supported
the game.
It was a good game. We did raise a lot of money for charity.
But I will put you on notice, Mike Doyle, the shoe is going to be on
the other foot next year. Be ready.
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Talk is cheap, Joe. Bring it
on.
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 noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. BURGESS. Madam 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 244,
noes 178, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 380]
AYES--244
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
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
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
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
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--178
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)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
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
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
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
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--11
Capps
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Courtney
Hanna
Hinojosa
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (MS)
Napolitano
Payne
Sarbanes
{time} 1422
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.
[[Page H4617]]
Stated against:
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 24th, 2015, I was
absent during rollcall vote No. 380. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``no'' on H. Res. 333--Rule providing for consideration of both
H.R. 2042--Ratepayer Protection Act of 2015 and H.R. 2822--Department
of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2016.
____________________