[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

     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
     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

[[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.

                          ____________________