Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 148 (Thursday, October 8, 2015)

[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 148 (Thursday, October 8, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H6902-H6911]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1315
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 538, NATIVE AMERICAN ENERGY ACT,
AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 702, ADAPTATION TO CHANGING
CRUDE OIL MARKETS

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 466 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 466

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant

[[Page H6903]]

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. 538) to facilitate the
development of energy on Indian lands by reducing Federal
regulations that impede tribal development of Indian lands,
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 Natural Resources. 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 114-30. That amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are
waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A
of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
702) to adapt to changing crude oil market conditions. 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 amendments
specified in this section 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. In lieu of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Energy and Commerce 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 114-29. That amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are
waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B
of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. BYRNE. 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. BYRNE. 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 Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 466 provides for consideration of
H.R. 538, the Native American Energy Act, and H.R. 702, which would
repeal the ban on exporting crude oil. H. Res. 466 calls for a
structured rule which makes in order 12 total amendments, including 7
minority amendments and 2 bipartisan amendments. Both of these bills
deal with easing the regulatory burden when it comes to the energy
sector.
Being from coastal Alabama, I have a great appreciation for the
impact the energy sector has on our economy, and I am a strong
supporter of an all-of-the-above approach to energy production.
Unfortunately, Washington has a bad habit of putting up costly barriers
that make it harder for the energy sector to grow and create new jobs.
Today is about getting some of these barriers out of the way and
unlocking our Nation's energy potential. One of the bills, the Native
American Energy Act, would roll back the overregulation of Indian lands
and encourage energy development by Indian tribes and Alaska Native
Corporations.
From streamlining duplicative Federal processes to increasing tribal
control over natural resource development, this bill includes important
reforms to unlock the precious energy resources on tribal land and to
allow these tribes to take more control of their energy assets. In
fact, a 2015 report from the Government Accountability Office found
that ``Indian energy resources hold significant potential for
development, but remain largely undeveloped.''
Mr. Speaker, they remain largely undeveloped because the Federal
Government is standing in the way. This has resulted in lost revenue
for Indian tribes, and it is time we fix this problem.
This commonsense legislation has strong support from tribes across
the Nation, including the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, the Confederated
Tribes of the Colville Reservation, the Intertribal Timber Council, the
Navaho Nation, Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation
in North Dakota, and the National Congress of American Indians. It is
time the Federal Government gets out of the way and allows tribal
nations to manage their land how they see fit, without the heavy hand
of government getting in the way.
The second bill covered by this rule would end the outdated ban on
crude oil exports. The ban was first put in place in 1975 as a response
to the Arab oil embargo, but it is clearly no longer necessary, and it
is tying our hands both economically and strategically around the
world.
Over the last decade, the United States has become the leading
producer of oil and natural gas in the world, which is good news for
the countless Americans who work in the oil industry, and it is even
better news for the American economy.
Mr. Speaker, there is broad, bipartisan support for lifting the 40-
year-old ban on crude oil exports. Leading economists, including former
Obama economic policy adviser Lawrence Summers, and leading scholars at
Harvard University support lifting the ban. Former U.N. Ambassador and
Energy Secretary under President Clinton Bill Richardson said that the
U.S. needs to export our oil and gas in order to ``help us
geopolitically in Eastern Europe against Russia.''
Recently, 135 senior legislative leaders from 40 States and Puerto
Rico sent a letter calling on Congress to lift the ban. The letter
notes that ``the outdated Federal export restrictions on crude oil and
LNG are detrimental to American workers, our collective security, and
economic recovery in our States.'' There were three signers of the
letter from Mr. Hastings' home State of Florida.
Numerous editorial boards around the country, including those at The
Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Detroit News, The Denver
Post, The Washington Times, and the Houston Chronicle have touted the
benefits of ending the ban.
Most notably, 69 percent of American people support lifting this ban.
Shouldn't we stand with the American people?
Now, Mr. Speaker, let's talk about some of the benefits from lifting
the outdated ban.

[[Page H6904]]

First, it is estimated that this legislation would create 630,000
additional U.S. jobs by 2019. Lifting the ban would also benefit U.S.
manufacturers and boost our GDP.
Second, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that lifting the
ban would generate $1.4 billion from oil and gas leases over the next
10 years. That is really a significant number.
Third, the Government Accountability Office found that lifting the
ban would lower gas prices by anywhere from 1.5 to 13 cents per gallon.
Even President Obama's own Department of Energy found that increased
oil exports would help lower gas prices.
Fourth, lifting the ban will allow the United States to help our
allies abroad. For example, Russia has continuously used their control
over oil to pressure European countries to comply with Russia's wishes.
If a country refused, Russia would threaten to cut off their energy
supply. By lifting the ban, the United States can begin supporting our
allies and, in turn, weaken Russia's grip on many European countries.
Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that this administration has
worked hard to open up oil export capabilities for Iran, yet they are
refusing to allow the United States to do so. By allowing Iran to
export oil, the President has essentially given the Ayatollah a leg up
in the global marketplace, placing the strategic interests of Iran over
those of the United States. This is yet another example of the
President of the United States standing with the people of Iran and the
Ayatollah and not standing up for the people of America. These are four
very clear benefits for repealing the ban and unlocking our Nation's
energy potential.

Now, the White House has said they believe lifting the oil export ban
is a decision that should be made by the Commerce Department, not by
Congress. So let me get this straight: The Obama administration would
rather unelected, unaccountable Federal bureaucrats at the Department
of Commerce make this decision instead of the democratically elected
Congress? I think that speaks to a far larger problem with this White
House and how they believe our government should work.
Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, both of these bills are about empowering the
American people and getting the government out of the way. These bills
both have broad support, and I urge my colleagues to approve this rule.
Let's move forward on passing these commonsense bills.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes for debate.
Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of both H.R. 702,
legislation to adapt to the changing crude oil market conditions, and
H.R. 538, the Native American Energy Act.
As we have seen time and again in what can only be described as
typical Republican fashion, we have again skirted regular order. As a
matter of fact, whatever happened to regular order in this institution?
It seems to have gone by the boards. Here we are considering two
unrelated pieces of legislation under one grab-bag rule.
What is more, instead of striving to roll back environmental
protections, we should be working in a bipartisan manner to avoid a
government shutdown in December, address the debt ceiling, pass a long-
term transportation bill so that we can rebuild our crumbling
infrastructure and put Americans back to work, and reauthorize the
Export-Import Bank, the charter of which Republicans allowed to expire
100 days ago.
Mr. Speaker, the 1973 oil embargo sparked a crisis in our country
that continues to influence our energy policies today. H.R. 702, the
first of the bills we are debating today, makes significant changes to
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, the primary statute for
restricting the export of domestically produced crude oil that was
enacted in the wake of the embargo.
It goes without saying that the energy situation in the United States
is far different today than it was in the 1970s when the oil export ban
began. Global crude oil prices fell to 6\1/2\-year lows in August. We
have such a surplus of oil that the number of rigs drilling for oil in
the United States dropped to 614 last week, down from 1,609 last
October. Based on these facts, it would behoove us to reexamine this
export ban.

{time} 1330

But, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 702 unwisely repeals the authority of the
President to restrict the export of petroleum products or natural gas
and prohibits any Federal official from imposing or enforcing
restrictions on the export of crude oil.
Last night in the Rules Committee I asked the question whether
President Obama deserves any credit for the lower gas prices.
Certainly, when gas prices were higher, he received an awful lot of
criticism and blame. It would seem to me that, with the increased
number of leases that he has allowed, he should get some credit at
least.
Moreover, the bill makes it virtually impossible to limit exports of
coal, natural gas, petroleum products, and petrochemical feedstocks.
Repealing this authority would eliminate our ability to restrict the
export of any of these products.
Lifting this ban would provide a gift to oil companies on top of the
decades of lucrative subsidies the industry already receives by the
American taxpayers. Enough is enough.
I would also note that the term--and I brought it up in the Rules
Committee last night and didn't get a clear answer--the term
``restriction'' is undefined. Let me quote my good friend Frank Pallone
of New Jersey, the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
He said: Since the term ``restriction'' is undefined, any Federal
action that could potentially impede the efficient exploration,
production, storage, supply, marketing, pricing, and regulation of
energy resources--including fossil fuels--could be considered a
restriction.
For instance, an order to shut down a pipeline that has been
determined to be a hazard to public safety and the environment under
the Pipeline Safety Act could be seen as a restriction.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 538 suffers from similar deficiencies. H.R. 538 has
the stated purpose of empowering Native American tribes to utilize and
develop energy resources on their lands.
I hesitate because I don't understand what part of sovereignty with
reference to Native Americans in this country we do not understand;
therefore, they should not have to be here hat in hand about their own
resources.
But tribal lands often hold great potential for domestic energy
production; yet, tribes often cannot harness the full economic
development potential of their natural resources. But this bill tries
to solve this problem by undercutting important environmental
protections.
In the name of encouraging energy production on tribal lands, this
bill severely restricts public involvement and comment on proposed
energy projects, prevents the recovery of attorneys' fees in cases
challenging these new energy projects, effectively chilling the
public's ability to bring bona fide claims to seek judicial redress for
environmental harms in their community.
And just for good measure, this legislation blocks any commonsense
hydraulic fracturing rules. Instead of undermining the bedrock of our
Nation's vital environmental protections, we should focus on real,
constructive reforms that will achieve tribal self-determination in
energy development without sacrificing commonsense environmental laws.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the esteemed gentleman
from Montana (Mr. Zinke).
Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 538, the Native
American Energy Act.
Mr. Young, my esteemed colleague from Alaska, I commend him on his
efforts over the years. This represents a significant step for tribes
across the country, especially in my State of Montana.
I have only been in the seat for a few months, and I can tell you
that the Federal Government has infringed on the sovereignty of our
tribes to develop their own natural resources.
What is sovereignty? Sovereignty is not going through a labyrinth of
rules that are far greater than other Federal

[[Page H6905]]

lands or State lands. It is not right. It is not right for the Crow
people. It is not right for every Indian nation across this land.
The government has infringed. The GAO report examines it and states
as much. The Crow tribe, a proud tribe in Montana, wants to be self-
sufficient. They want to make sure that they have a prosperous economy
and do right by their people; yet, the chairman, Old Coyote, has said a
war on coal is a war on the Crow people. And he is right.
There is no better job on the Crow reservation than a coal job. There
is no better future than to have access to the 9 billion tons of coal
that are locked in the ground that they can't develop and they can't
develop in the interest of their own people because the Federal
Government is in the way.
This bill doesn't skirt environmental rules or laws. What it does is
it streamlines a position, streamlines their sovereignty and their
rights, and that is important.
So, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, this is not a Democrat or a
Republican issue. This is an American issue, and it is about respect.
I ask all Members to respect the native tribes, respect their right
to sovereignty, respect their right for self-determination.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Background checks are the first line of defense to keep guns out of
the hands of criminals. If we defeat the previous question, I am going
to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that would
expand the current background check system to include all commercial
sales of firearms.
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 am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), my good friend, to
discuss our proposal. He is the chair of the House Gun Violence
Prevention Task Force.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule today and in support of
bringing the bipartisan King-Thompson background check bill to the
floor for a vote.
Let me give you some numbers: 278, the number of mass shootings in
our country since Newtown; 275, the number of days this Congress has
been in session; 16, the number of gun-related moments of silence
Congress has held since the start of last year; and 0, the number of
votes this body has taken to help prevent or lessen gun violence.
Just a week ago we endured another mass shooting. This time it was
nine people at a community college in Oregon. Six weeks ago it was a
news reporter and cameraman in Virginia. Five weeks before that it was
two people at the movies in Lafayette. Five weeks before that it was a
prayer group in Charleston.

Every single time a mass shooting happens we go through the same
routine--thoughts and prayers are sent; statements are made; stories
are written; moments of silence are held--and nothing changes. No
action is taken. No votes are cast.
It has been said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over
again and expecting different results. The majority leadership has done
nothing over and over again. Predictably, the results have been the
same: more innocent lives lost, more families forever changed, and more
mass gun violence.
The five Republican coauthors of our background check bill
notwithstanding, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have done
nothing as mass gun violence has become commonplace. No bills have been
brought to the floor. No ideas have been brought to the table. No
proposals have even been considered.
You have the majority in the House and in the Senate. You have a
White House and a Democratic Caucus willing to work with you. You are
presumably here to govern and lead. A big part of that means stepping
up when children, students, and families are routinely put in danger.
Gun violence takes the lives of 30-plus Americans every single day.
It constitutes a public health emergency that demands action from the
public's leaders. We have it in our power to do something. Let's not
waste that.
We don't know what laws could have prevented the shooting in Oregon
or Virginia or Charleston, but we do know that every day background
checks stop more than 170 felons, some 50 domestic abusers, and nearly
20 fugitives from buying a gun. We know they help keep guns from
dangerous people, and that saves lives.
This isn't about the Second Amendment. I am a hunter and I am a gun
owner. I support the Second Amendment. If the King-Thompson background
check bill undermined the rights of gun owners, my name wouldn't be on
it.
This is about keeping guns from criminals, domestic abusers, and the
dangerously mentally ill. It is about taking a simple, commonsense step
to keep spouses, kids, and communities safe.
All this bill does is require a background check for people buying a
gun online or at a gun show. Why would anyone not want to make sure the
people buying guns on the Internet or at a gun show are sane, law-
abiding citizens? We do it at licensed dealers, why not for all
commercial sales? Why do we want to give criminals, domestic abusers,
and the dangerously mentally ill a huge loophole through which they can
buy guns? It makes no sense.
We can do one of two things here today. We can wait out the new
cycle, allow the horror of Oregon to fade into our minds, do nothing,
wait for the next tragedy, and then offer thoughts and prayers. That
would be nothing new.
It is what the majority did with Newtown. It is what they did with
Navy Yard. It is what they did with Isla Vista, Charleston, and
Virginia. This time could be different. We could actually pull together
and do something to make our country safer.
No legislation will stop every shooting. But passing commonsense gun
laws like background checks will at least stop some, and that makes it
worth doing. Don't sit here and let America's new normal become mass
gun violence followed by thoughts and prayers, but no action. We are
here to govern. This is happening on our watch, and it is within our
power to save some lives. Let's do it.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), who is a tireless advocate for
the energy interests of his State of Louisiana.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, let's look at the facts. I support this
rule and I support the underlying legislation, H.R. 702, which would
lift the ban on oil exports for this country.
The United States is the only oil-producing country that has a self-
imposed ban, and it makes no sense. It doesn't fit within our own views
of open trade, open energy markets.
Why did this come about? It came about because in the 1970s we moved
into an age of scarcity with regard to energy. Our producers could not
keep up with demand.
American innovation, American technology, has solved that. Now we
have moved into an era of abundance. This is a time where we can
actually change the entire landscape of energy security not only for
the United States, but also for our allies, and reap major economic
benefit by lifting the ban.
When we came out of the recession, energy jobs helped lift us out of
that recession. The shale revolution was a major factor. What we are
seeing now with slack demand and the abundance and a lot of oil sitting
that is not being used in refineries has caused slacking in prices and
job loss.
We can reverse that by lifting the ban and giving American producers
access to the market, just like everybody else that produces oil. Why
should the Iranians be able to sell oil on the open market and we have
a self-imposed ban on American energy producers? It makes no sense at
all.
Secondly, if we lift the ban, this is a first and necessary step, I
believe, in building out a whole new energy strategy for the United
States that leads to an American view, an American imprint, on energy
security, not a Russian and not an OPEC view of this.

[[Page H6906]]

Why? Because we embrace open markets, we embrace diversity of
sources, we embrace transparency and pricing. That is what we want.
Lifting the ban is that first step.

{time} 1345

Thirdly, if we couple this with building out more pipelines that help
us integrate the Mexican energy market and the Canadian, the North
American area can clearly take care of all of our domestic demands
collectively and have plenty to export.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, this will then move us in a position of
dominating energy strategy globally, putting OPEC and Russia on the
defense. They cannot keep up with American energy producers. They don't
have the innovation; they don't have the technology; and they are
running budget deficits that are harmful to their countries. They will
have to change, and we will dominate the energy sector.
Further, if we integrate this with our trade policies, we then start
to eliminate the abusive practices that national oil companies
perpetrate and put American open-market companies, multinational
companies, back in the driver's seat. But we also help American
producers and producers in my home State of Louisiana, small companies
that are suppliers, small companies that provide the services: the boat
companies, the maritime companies that help facilitate all of this.
This is about job creation. This is about American energy production;
it is about American energy security; and it is about having leverage
in our foreign policy. That is why I support this first step of lifting
this ban on crude exports.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, before yielding, I would like to speak
very briefly about process, because a lot of times people don't
understand that the base bill that we are discussing today, the two
rules, the process allows the minority an opportunity to present a
motion. One is a motion to recommit. One of the parts of that process
that we are discussing here today has to do with gun violence. Mr.
Thompson, who just spoke about it eloquently, I add to what he had to
say.
Here in Washington, D.C., in the last 6 days, five people have been
killed by guns. In Chicago and in my hometown and around this Nation,
in addition to the mass killings, there have been a number of killings.
David Satcher was Surgeon General of the United States from 1998 to
2002. In the year of 2000, he was the first person that I know that
raised publicly the fact that we have a gun violence epidemic in this
country. There were people that wanted to run him out of office because
of that. We need to pay attention.
For the purpose of discussing this further, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty), someone who has had a real
experience with gun violence.
Ms. ESTY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and in
support of the opportunity to vote for commonsense, bipartisan gun
violence prevention legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I represent Newtown, Connecticut; and on December 14,
2012, almost 3 years ago, 20 precious children and 6 dedicated
educators were ripped from us by gun violence.
After Newtown, America said ``never again.'' But just 2 days ago, we
observed another moment of silence in this House, this time for the
community of Roseburg, Oregon.
As with every other mass shooting since Newtown, families and first
responders in my district are retraumatized. In fact, by my count, we
have held 16 moments of silence on the House floor to honor those
Americans taken from us by gun violence since the tragedy at Sandy
Hook. Sixteen times we in this House have come together and bowed our
heads in silence and then refused to do anything substantial to prevent
gun violence.
Mr. Speaker, we can and we must do better. We must be allowed a vote
on the bipartisan bill that will close background check loopholes and
save lives.
Ninety percent of Americans support background checks. Background
checks keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. That is why
every gun purchase should be allowed only after a successful background
check.
We are not dealing with a natural disaster. This is not an
earthquake. This crisis is manmade, and it is up to us to take action
to save lives.
The time has passed for moments of silence. We need hours of action.
I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote today to
bring the bipartisan background check to the House floor.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I think what the gentleman from Florida said
at the beginning was inaccurate. He said that we brought two things
together in this rule that are not related to one another. They are.
They are both related to energy production in this country, and that is
what the rule is about.
Now, I am standing here today as the grandson of a man who was shot
and killed by someone who was mentally ill in 1920. I know the
importance of that issue. I know what it means to families who have
been victimized by it. There may be a day and a time for us to have
this debate, but it is not today.
Today, we are talking about the energy security of our country.
Today, we are here to talk about freeing up the American economy and
freeing up domestic producers so that they can sell their product
abroad, as we are now going to allow Iran to sell their product abroad.
I would like for us to get back to the debate on energy. That is what
we are here today about.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman doesn't have the prerogative
of what the minority has, and that is an opportunity to offer a motion
to recommit.
He is correct that there are two bills that are being brought here in
this grab-bag rule, but if he says that today is not the day for us to
discuss gun violence, then I want to ask him: What day is it that we
are supposed to discuss gun violence? People are being killed all over
this Nation, and we have an epidemic, and we are constantly not doing
anything about it. If it is not today, when? And if it is not us, who?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Napolitano), my distinguished colleague and good friend.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say I agree with my
colleague. If not now, when? We have been asking that for many, many
generations.
Because of the mass shootings, American families are demanding
Congress to act. They want action, but Congress has not heard any
bills. They refuse to hear them. There is nothing. There is no
opportunity to have the light of day or to have some transparency to
it.
The last meaningful gun violence prevention bill was in 1994, and
that was the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.
Shootings, as was pointed out, are now an everyday occurrence. It is
commonplace, so people are becoming numb, except for those who are
immediately affected and are asking us to move and pass legislation,
give it the light of day, discuss it, bring it up, start some
methodology to be able to understand what this House is looking at
doing for our American people, for our children, and for our families.
Now, collective action, we need it. Transparent discussion is
necessary and much needed. Enough of skirting this issue. What is more
important, gas and oil or the lives of human beings?
Keep guns away from people that should not have them and/or would use
them to harm others.
H.R. 1217 mandates universal background checks for all purchases. It
is a step in the right direction. It would move our country forward in
beginning the process of addressing this epidemic that we are facing.
We need real, constructive legislation. We need to prevent and lessen
violence. We must keep guns out of the hands of people who should not
have access to them, such as the dangerously mentally ill. Now,
domestic abusers and people with violent histories also should not have
access to them, and they currently do.
Now, without stigmatizing those with mental illness because then you
have a problem on your hands, we need to inform, educate, and help
young people, families, and educators. We need to help those who are
exhibiting emotional disturbances and help them

[[Page H6907]]

learn how to access information and assistance.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North
Dakota (Mr. Cramer).
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to disrespect in any way the
minority's opportunity that they have, but I did come here to talk
about the energy bills.
I chose to go last on this side because I would like to address some
of the thoughtful concerns that were raised by Mr. Hastings from
Florida. I call them concerns because I didn't hear real objections. I
think they are legitimate concerns that some people have had, and they
deserve discussion. We are talking about the rule here.
He made a suggestion that somehow this lifting of the oil export ban
bill, H.R. 702, takes the President's prerogative away to deal with a
situation at all costs or in every situation. The reality is it does
reserve a right for the President to reinstate the ban in some sort of
an emergency. I want to make sure that that is clarified.
I also want to clarify that he mentioned we are not in regular order,
and perhaps he is referring to the Native American Energy Act. I know
we have had a couple of hearings since I have been in Congress on that,
perhaps not this Congress. I don't know. I am not on that committee.
I can tell you that the Energy and Commerce Committee has had a
hearing on H.R. 702, and two other committees have had hearings on
similar bills: the Agriculture Committee and the Foreign Affairs
Committee. So this has been a thoroughly vetted issue. In fact, with
the admonition of Speaker Boehner, we really did take a long time with
this issue to help educate one another, those of us from energy States.
So I do think we have had a thorough debate on the topic, and I think
it is time to have this discussion.
Coming from North Dakota, I just want to tell you that I come from a
State that, prior to the energy revolution, or the Bakken revolution,
the shale revolution, we were experiencing outmigration and low
personal per capita income. Today, we have the second highest personal
per capita income in the country. We can't accept people fast enough to
deal with the jobs that are available. We are at a bit of a standstill
right now because we are overproducing light sweet crude in this
country, which is the type of crude that the global markets are
demanding, but our domestic markets, because of our refining capacity,
are not.
This is the time to lift this ban, and this is the body to do it. I
hope we can get to it this afternoon.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, before yielding, I would like to correct
myself.
When I spoke, I spoke about the minority's right for a motion to
recommit, which indeed we do have; but in this particular instance, it
is the minority's right to offer up the previous question, and that is
what we are proceeding under.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Price), a gentleman I have known a very long time in this
institution and care greatly about, a very thoughtful Member.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
rule and in protest to the Republican leadership's failure to bring
commonsense legislation to the floor to stem our Nation's tide of gun
violence.
In the wake of seemingly endless mass shootings, Americans of all
backgrounds and diverse political beliefs are urging elected officials
to stop merely wringing our hands and actually do something that
protects our communities.
One measure that has virtually unanimous support is background checks
to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, domestic abusers, and the
dangerously mentally ill. The problem is that our current background
check system is rife with loopholes: background checks are not required
at gun shows; they are also not required when individuals purchase
weapons online.
The bipartisan King-Thompson background checks bill would close these
egregious loopholes. It is an entirely sensible reform that would have
a measurable impact on the safety of our schools and neighborhoods
without preventing law-abiding citizens from using guns for self-
defense or for recreational purposes.
I wholeheartedly reject the defeatist notion that we cannot do
anything about our Nation's gun violence. I ask my colleagues: How much
longer must we wait? How many more people have to die to get our
attention? How many more American towns and cities must be added to the
growing list of places like Columbine, Aurora, Charleston, and Newtown?
In the last 3 years, we have had some 20 moments of silence here on
the House floor to honor victims of gun violence in the United States.
Moments of silence are not enough. Thoughts and prayers are not enough.
We need action, and I call on my colleagues to bring the background
checks bill to the floor for a vote and to do it now.

{time} 1400

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), my good friend and a former member of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago I was here for a moment of
silence on behalf of the 12 killed and the 70 injured in the Aurora
movie theater. Since that time, we have had at least 55 mass shootings
where four or more people were killed and we have had at least 22
moments of silence.
How many more senseless acts of violence and hatred must occur before
we stand up and take action? How many more young, bright lives are
going to be cut short because of loopholes in the law? How many more
times must we stand on this floor in moments of silence, solemnly
remembering another victim? How many more times must the flags be
lowered at half staff in honor of servicemembers gunned down in their
own backyard?
As important as these moments of reflection are, they happen with
such regularity, we become numb to their significance. When will this
violence end? Why is it we are paralyzed by the very laws that are
meant to protect us?
It is incumbent upon us, as Members of Congress, to act and protect
our citizens from unnecessary gun violence. I appreciated the gentleman
from Alabama mentioning the violence that his own family has
experienced.
It is time for a dialogue in the spirit of civility and compassion,
bringing all Americans together to have a discussion about peace and
safety in our schools, churches, and community centers. We have to
begin. We can do this. It requires courage, but we can act to reduce
this violence by passing meaningful gun violence prevention legislation
that respects the Second Amendment.
Last week I joined 147 other Members of this body in writing to the
Speaker, demanding action on gun violence prevention legislation. We
demand a vote. Action is needed. I urge the defeat of the rule.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to advise how much
time is remaining on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 8 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Alabama has 15 minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), a good friend of mine. He is the
ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment
and the Economy.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule, and in particular I oppose
H.R. 702. Apparently, we have learned nothing over the past 40 years
because this bill asks that we forget about oil shortages, oil
recessions, and painfully high energy bills.
Do we really believe that the days of $100 per barrel of oil are
gone? Do we really believe that our military will never again be called
upon to keep vital oil trade routes or production areas open? I wish
that were true, but I doubt it.
Until we reduce our dependence on oil, we should retain control over
our domestic oil resources. Our Nation is not energy independent. We
still use a great deal of oil and other petroleum products.
Our transportation sector is still extremely vulnerable to price
increases, whether we are talking about certainly

[[Page H6908]]

individual drivers, certainly our airlines or freight companies.
Our manufacturing sector is vulnerable, also. China may now be the
largest importer of oil, but we are still the world's largest consumer
of oil. This policy is not just about whether we open up trade on
another commodity. It is a matter of national security and economic
security. It is in our national interest that we can and do export
crude oil and refined petroleum products now.
When we export refined products, we gain the extra benefit of jobs in
the refining industry as well as those in oil production. This bill
eliminates Presidential authority to restrict trade in crude oil.
It allows decisions about oil exports to be made by the oil
companies, and they put a higher value on their profits than on our
national security, our United States consumers, or our environment.
The oil companies see this window of low global oil prices as the
opportunity to lift the ban on crude exports. The advocates for this
policy point to the current slowdown in new drilling activity as
evidence that our export policy is eliminating jobs in oil production.
The fact remains that oil is a global commodity and the global market
price for a barrel of oil is no better than the price here in the
United States. When oil is under $50 per barrel, wells that are
marginal or with higher costs will be capped until the price rises.
That situation will not change by exporting to any already oversupplied
global market.
But what happens when Asia's demand for oil increases, as it surely
will, and the global price again climbs into the $100 per barrel range?
That is an excellent opportunity to sell as much as possible on the
global market, a windfall for the oil companies and an economic
downturn for us.
This policy change benefits a few of the wealthiest companies on this
planet. There is no benefit for consumers. We will put our national
security at risk, and certainly jobs and infrastructure in the refining
industry and other industries as well will be hurt.
Exports of oil, in fact, and any of our strategically important
resources should be in our national interest. Big Oil gets more than
their share of subsidy from the United States' taxpayers. They do not
need this additional windfall, and consumers and taxpayers cannot--
simply cannot--afford to provide it.
I urge you to reject this rule and to oppose H.R. 702.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the gentleman talk, and he
was talking about how this might have a negative impact on American
consumers with regard to gas prices. I would remind the House that even
President Obama's own Department of Energy found that increased oil
exports would help lower gas prices.
The gentleman also mentioned what this might do to the security of
the United States. A member of President Clinton's Cabinet has said
this will enhance the security of the United States by strengthening
our hand in Central and Eastern Europe.
I have listened to the gentleman. I respect his views, but I must say
that I think the evidence that comes to us from Democratic
administrations proves that what he said is really not accurate.
Mr. Speaker, we have no additional speakers. So if the gentleman is
prepared to close, he may do so. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My Republican friends argue that these bills will encourage growth
and investment in our Nation's energy markets, local communities, and
economy and are, therefore, important measures that we must address
even as we face a highway trust fund that will become insolvent in a
matter of weeks as well as another looming government shutdown in
December.

All the while, those same individuals refuse to authorize the Export-
Import Bank's charter, an entity that has created and sustained 1.5
million American jobs since 2007 at no cost to the taxpayer.
Passing a responsible budget, delivering on a long-term
transportation bill, and reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank will encourage
the growth and investment that my friends speak of. The time to deliver
on our promises to the American people is long overdue.
I call on House Republicans to stop wasting our time with legislation
that rolls back long-held environmental protections--and stand almost
certain veto threats--and take up the important measures that I
mentioned.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to return to this notion of the
previous question with reference to gun violence.
I believe in the Second Amendment. I own a gun. When I was a child,
at age 7, I had a Red Ryder BB gun. When I was 12, I had a single-shot
.22 rifle. I believe in every citizen's right to own a gun, and I
believe my colleagues here on this side believe the same thing.
If every man, woman, and child is accounted for in the estimate of
guns that are in this country, that would be more than 330 million.
There are some people in our society who believe that somebody is going
to come and take their guns. I wonder who that person would be.
Would it be a President of the United States? Would it be the
military? Are they going to go and take the guns from their moms, their
brothers, their sons, their fathers? That is foolish.
We need to stop this madness. Doing nothing in the face of all of
this epidemic violence that we are experiencing allows that not only is
this House dysfunctional in many of its particulars, but it is frozen
in its indifference to the gun violence in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
American technology is a marvel in the world. We Americans figure out
how to solve problems by using technology.
Just a few years ago we were struggling with how we were going to get
enough energy into this country from other places, and now, because of
the changes to the American people, we figured out the technologies it
takes to be able to exploit energy resources right here.
It is almost like a miracle. We get to become energy independent
where we won't have to get energy from other places. In fact, we found
so much energy that we are in a position where we can export it and
benefit our economy and people in America with more jobs.
Now, I have got to tell you something: I am proud to be American for
a lot of reasons, but there is a great reason right there.
Our ingenuity solved this problem and created opportunities that we
couldn't have dreamt of, but the Federal Government is standing in the
way. We can't fully do what we need to do here.
There are many things in the way, but we are trying to deal with just
two of them today. One of them is the limitations we put on the
sovereign tribal nations that my friend from Florida so eloquently
spoke about.
We put limitations on them and their ability to develop energy
resources on their land. It is their land. Let them develop it. There
are a couple good things from that. One of them is all of us in America
get the benefit from that. As we develop any part of our energy sector,
it benefits all of us.
Secondly, it benefits those people in those tribal nations. They are
not asking for the Federal Government to give them something. They are
asking for the Federal Government to get out of the way so they can do
something for themselves. I think we ought to celebrate that in America
and give them that opportunity.
The second bill removes a decades-old ban on oil exports. I am old
enough to remember the 1970s. I remember waiting in a gas line and not
being able to get gas, but that was then with the technology we had
then, not now with the technology and the proven reserves we have now.
I don't want to shoulder my children with limitations based upon
technology or technological understanding we had when I was their age.
As they tell me all the time: Daddy, we have moved on. We have moved on
in a very positive way in this particular aspect.
So it is time to get the dead hand of the past off of our energy
industry so it can start doing the things it has so miraculously proven
that it can do.
I urge everybody in this House to support this rule. I urge everybody
in this House to support both of these underlying bills.

[[Page H6909]]

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 466 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
1217) to protect Second Amendment rights, ensure that all
individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm
are listed in the National Instant Criminal Background Check
System, and provide a responsible and consistent background
check process. 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 among and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary and 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. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 1217.
____

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. BYRNE. 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 244,
nays 183, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 541]

YEAS--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
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
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
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NAYS--183

[[Page H6910]]

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
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--7

Cleaver
Connolly
Dingell
Hudson
Sinema
Vela
Wilson (SC)

{time} 1442

Mr. RIGELL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina was allowed to
speak out of order.)

Moment of Silence for the Victims of the South Carolina Flood

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, fellow Members of
Congress, the people of South Carolina have faced an unprecedented,
catastrophic weather event, also known as a 1,000-year rain, exceeding
20 inches virtually overnight, causing flooding and widespread damage.
We are grateful for your thoughts and prayers.
The flooding and rain destroyed homes and roads, collapsed bridges,
and broke dams across the State; 400 roads and bridges are still
closed. Tragically, to date, the flooding has claimed the lives of
nearly 20 citizens across the Carolinas. We ask for your thoughts and
prayers for their families.
We are grateful for the strength of the people of South Carolina, led
by Governor Nikki Haley and Adjutant General Bob Livingston.
We are inspired by people like Aaron and Amy Dupree, with their four
small children, who were rescued by boat from their home in Columbia's
Lake Katherine community by their neighbor, Brian Boyer.
You will hear stories of incredible acts of volunteerism, like Kassy
Alia, the widow of Forest Acres Police Officer Greg Alia who was
murdered last week, leaving her and their 5-month-old son, Sal. Despite
her grief, she joined others in distributing food to those in need.
Wherever you go, you will find heroes like these and hear about the
service of the first responders, emergency personnel, officials, and
State employees who have worked tirelessly to aid our community.
We appreciate that Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson will lead
a fact-finding delegation with members of our delegation to our State
tomorrow.
I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn). If he is
not available, I just want to thank him for his service. We look
forward to being on the delegation with him tomorrow.
God bless South Carolina, and I ask my colleagues to stand and join
me in a moment of silence.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members will rise for a moment of silence.
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 244,
noes 185, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 542]

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
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
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
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

NOES--185

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
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
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
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
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
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

[[Page H6911]]

NOT VOTING--5

Cleaver
Dingell
Gibson
Hudson
Sinema

{time} 1456

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.

____________________