[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H297-H308]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1644, SUPPORTING TRANSPARENT
REGULATORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIONS IN MINING ACT; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF S.J. RES. 22, PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL
OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3662, IRAN
TERROR FINANCE TRANSPARENCY ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING
THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 14, 2016, THROUGH JANUARY 22, 2016
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 583 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 583
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1644) to amend the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 to ensure transparency in the
development of environmental regulations, 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 the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Natural Resources now printed in the bill. The committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the joint resolution (S.J.
Res. 22) providing for congressional disapproval under
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental
Protection Agency relating to the definition of ``waters of
the United States'' under the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act. All points of order against consideration of the joint
resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure; and (2) one motion to
commit.
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3662) to
enhance congressional oversight over the administration of
sanctions against certain Iranian terrorism financiers, and
for other purposes. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs; and (2)
one motion to recommit.
Sec. 4. On any legislative day during the period from
January 14, 2016, through January 22, 2016--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 5. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
[[Page H298]]
{time} 1245
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), 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. NEWHOUSE. 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 Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 583, providing for consideration of
three important pieces of legislation. Those are H.R. 1644, the STREAM
Act; H.R. 3662, the Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act; and S.J. Res.
22, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the
EPA and Army Corps of Engineers' rule relating to the definition of
waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act.
The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1644 under a structured
rule, making four amendments in order, three from the Democrats and one
from the Republicans, H.R. 3662 under a closed rule and S.J. Res 22
also under a closed rule.
Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I have grave concerns about the
administration's nuclear agreement with Iran. Since the agreement's
adoption in July, Iran has shown no goodwill or intention of improving
its relationship with the West. In many ways, the Iranian regime has
increased its aggressive attitude toward the United States and our
allies.
Against U.N. Security Council resolutions, the rogue nation has
expanded its ballistic missile program, testing two missiles as
recently as last fall. Just on December 26 an Iranian military ship
fired a rocket near U.S. and French military vessels in the Persian
Gulf. These incidents occurred just months before crippling
international sanctions against the country are scheduled to be lifted.
Further, Iran continues to be a state sponsor of terrorism, a direct
threat to our closest ally in the region, Israel, continues rampant
human rights abuses, and continues the wrongful imprisonment of five
American citizens.
President Obama and senior administration officials have claimed that
the nuclear agreement and lifting of economic sanctions, which could
return as much as $100 billion in frozen assets to Tehran, will help
Iran down a more moderate path. However, reality appears to show the
contrary is occurring.
Just weeks after the deal was signed, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei stated that: We won't allow American political, economic, or
cultural influence in Iran.
And just last week the Supreme Leader told a gathering of prayer
leaders that: Americans have set their eyes covetously on elections,
but the great and vigilant nation of Iran will act contrary to the
enemies' will, whether it be in elections or on other issues, and, as
before, will punch them in the mouth.
While President Obama may find something positive in Iran's actions
and statements, I believe Congress owes it to the American people to
view Iran with skepticism and concern.
H.R. 3662, the Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act, requires the
President to certify that those individuals and entities receiving
sanctions relief under the Iranian nuclear deal are not involved in
Iran's support for terrorism, its human rights abuses, or its ballistic
missile program.
By passing this legislation, Mr. Speaker, Congress can help ensure
that the U.S. will continue to sanction and deter terrorism and illegal
ballistic missile tests within the state of Iran.
In arguing for the nuclear deal's adoption, the President committed
to Congress and to the American people that our ``sanctions on Iran for
its support of terrorism, its human rights abuses, its ballistic
missile program, will continue to be fully enforced.''
This legislation gives us the opportunity to hold the President to
his word and conduct the necessary oversight to ensure that sanctions
are enforced.
Additionally, this rule will provide for consideration of two other
very critical measures that will help protect American businesses and
families from the administration's regulatory overreach.
Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1644,
legislation that was drafted in response to the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement's ongoing rulemaking process that
seeks to govern the interaction between surface mining operations and
streams. It is commonly referred to as the stream buffer zone rule.
In December 2008, the outgoing Bush administration published its
final stream buffer zone rule. This rule was the product of over 5
years of deliberation, extensive scientific research, environmental
analyses, public comment, and a concurrence from the Environmental
Protection Agency.
Put simply, this rule was developed the right way, with transparency,
unbiased research, scientific integrity, stakeholder engagement, and,
most importantly, public involvement.
However, shortly after the final 2008 rule was released, several
environmental groups filed a lawsuit against the OSM, ultimately
leading to a settlement agreement between OSM and the environmental
groups.
After numerous missed deadlines, the environmental organizations
renewed the litigation, the administration agreed with the complaint.
As a result, the court vacated the 2008 rule and OSM subsequently
restarted the rulemaking process.
Since that time, the entire process has lacked transparency.
Oversight conducted by the House Committee on Natural Resources, of
which I am a member, revealed that the settlement agreement's expedited
timeframe, coupled with an inexperienced contractor and gross
mismanagement of the rulemaking process, resulted in major issues with
the administration's rule.
Now, this may sound just a little familiar. It is the very same sue
and settle practice that the House addressed just last week with the
passage of H.R. 712, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and
Settlements Act.
The outcome is another example of why sue and settle leads to poor
rulemakings and onerous regulations that significantly harm the people,
businesses, and jobs they are supposed to be supporting.
Backroom deals between environmental groups and Federal agencies do
not lead to sound regulations, but instead circumvent the rulemaking
process to serve the interest of a select few, namely, special
interests and environmental groups.
For 6 years, OSM has been rewriting this rule, and the ongoing
process has now cost the taxpayers over $10 million, though this is
only a small fraction of the cost it will have on businesses and
hardworking American families.
The stream protection rule will drastically reduce our access to
coal, which accounts for nearly half of our country's electricity,
leading to higher electricity costs and significant job losses.
According to a study from the National Mining Association, the number
of direct mining jobs that could be lost is between 40,000 and 77,000
and the total job losses is between 112,000 and 280,000, a fact that is
underscored by the Nation's second largest oil company, Arch Coal,
filing for bankruptcy, largely due to the increased cost of Federal
regulations. That happened just this week, Mr. Speaker.
For these reasons, it is imperative that we pass H.R. 1644,
legislation that delays the rule's implementation, increases scientific
transparency for rulemakings affecting mining, directs a transparent
third party to evaluate the existing stream buffer zone rule, and
reduces duplicative regulation.
This rule also makes in order legislation dealing with an issue that
I hear about very often in my congressional district. It strikes the
controversial waters of the United States, or WOTUS rule.
S.J. Res. 22 is a resolution of disapproval of the President's WOTUS
rule that was passed by the Senate in bipartisan fashion, and it is now
time for the House to consider and pass this important measure.
[[Page H299]]
This legislation was crafted in response to the WOTUS rule
promulgated by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, which redefines
and vastly expands the scope of water subject to Federal jurisdiction
under the Clean Water Act. By issuing this rule, these agencies have
given themselves broad new power over water and land across the United
States.
Like many of my constituents, I am very concerned with this massive
Federal overreach. It goes far beyond the agencies' statutory authority
and could impose significant costs not only on American farmers and
small businesses, but on States and local governments. The rule is
another Federal power grab that has more to do with controlling land
use decisions than protecting access to clean water.
Mr. Speaker, S.J. Res. 22 utilizes the Congressional Review Act to
block this harmful regulation, and it is time to send this critical
measure to the President's desk. I urge my colleagues to support this
commonsense legislation and the rule providing for its consideration.
Mr. Speaker, the rule we consider here today provides for the
consideration of three bills that are critically important for the
future of this country.
{time} 1300
We must pass H.R. 1644 and S.J. Res. 22 to protect American families
and businesses from the rampant executive overreach that will be the
defining achievement of the Obama administration.
Furthermore, the United States must stand with our allies in the
Middle East, as well as around the world, in the face of growing
Iranian aggression, which threatens not only the stability of the
region, but the strength of U.S. alliances and standing in the world.
I stand ready to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to ensure that the Obama administration's shortsighted nuclear
agreement does not unravel decades of work by the U.S. and our allies
to impose meaningful sanctions on the country of Iran. These sanctions
have restricted Iran's ability to spread its radical beliefs and
inflict unknown damage on its neighbors in the region, and I urge my
colleagues to support this rule, as well as the underlying legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse)
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this rule and the
underlying legislation. The rule provides for consideration of three
pieces of legislation, and two of these bills are under a completely
closed process. In fact, these are the 49th and 50th closed rules in
this Congress.
Last year was the most closed session in the history of our country,
and I think this year will probably beat last year. I don't think that
is anything to be proud of.
This is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world,
but the problem is, we don't deliberate very much anymore. We don't
pass legislation. Instead, we pass sound bites, and that is what we are
doing here today.
This Chamber has become an echo chamber, if you will, for the
Republican Congressional Campaign Committee and its priorities, and the
people's business gets tossed to the side.
When Speaker Ryan took the gavel, he promised openness and a return
to serious legislating. And my colleagues on the Rules Committee, we
give them many opportunities to be more generous with granting more
opportunities for Members of both sides to be able to offer amendments.
And every time we do that, they vote ``no.'' And every time we bring up
an open rule, they vote ``no.''
Here we are, with two more bills that will be debated under a
completely closed process this week. Things have to change here, and I
hope my colleagues in the leadership on the other side will reflect on
what the purpose of all of us being here is supposed to be.
I would say it is about trying to find ways to come together and to
pass things that will help improve the quality of life for all the
people of this country, as well as to ensure our security in this
dangerous world.
Mr. Speaker, let me say a few words about H.R. 3662, the Iran Terror
Finance Transparency Act. My Republican friends would have us believe
that this bill is a serious effort to increase congressional oversight
of sanctions relief under the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action, commonly known as the Iran deal.
I wish that were true, Mr. Speaker. Such a bill could bring together
a substantial number of Members from both parties. I would be even more
confident about such a bill if it were crafted with input from the
administration about how Congress could be most helpful and effective
in monitoring the Iran nuclear deal.
Regrettably, what is coming before the House is another ultra-
partisan bill that would shut down the ability of the United States to
carry out its own obligations under the Iran deal.
Rather than the world closely monitoring Iran's compliance, this bill
would make the United States a target of condemnation for failing to
fulfill its commitments. In fact, it would be the United States that is
the nation in noncompliance with the Iran nuclear deal.
Now, many of my colleagues who are critics of the Iran nuclear deal
have already signaled that they cannot support this bill. House
Republicans made no attempt whatsoever to make this bill a bipartisan
bill. They made no attempt to draft a bill that might actually be
signed by the President and worth the American taxpayers' time. This is
political theater at its worst, plain and simple.
This latest House Republican bill is even more dangerous because it
plays politics with our national security.
No one here wants to see Iran freed from its commitment not to
develop a nuclear weapon, but that is exactly what this bill would do
if it ever became law. It would make sure that the United States could
not fulfill its part of the bargain, thus killing the nuclear
agreement, and Iran would once again be free to pursue building nuclear
weapons. That is insane.
How can my Republican friends possibly think that this is a good
idea?
I believe that there are Members of Congress in both parties who want
to work together with the administration in a bipartisan manner to
build on the progress that they have made to prevent Iran from
obtaining a nuclear weapon.
I do believe there are Democrats and Republicans in Congress who
genuinely want to strengthen the ability of the U.S. and the
international community to respond effectively to Iran's recent testing
of ballistic missiles, hold Iran accountable for their support of
militant and terrorist organizations in the Middle East, and secure the
freedom of Americans currently imprisoned in Iran.
I also believe that achieving these goals may not require
legislation, but strong bipartisan actions that increase U.S. leverage
with our international partners and with Iran.
But playing dangerous political games with our national security by
bringing legislation like this to the floor, legislation that would
undermine and perhaps even kill the nuclear deal with Iran, is not the
answer.
Now, luckily for the American people, this bill is not going to go
anywhere. Even if it were actually passed by both Chambers of Congress
and made its way to the President's desk, it would be vetoed, and I
strongly doubt that the Congress would be able to overturn a
Presidential veto in support of such a clearly partisan bill.
Last week, Congress voted for the 62nd time to repeal the Affordable
Care Act, and soon afterward, that bill was vetoed by the President.
That is 62 times that Republicans wasted the American people's time and
taxpayer dollars trying to take health care away from millions of
families, all to make a political point.
Congress has already voted on the Iran deal. My colleagues who
opposed the deal tried to kill it, and they failed. It is now official
policy. Are House Republicans going to take us down the same path they
did with the Affordable Care Act? Are we also going to vote on this
bill 62 times, a bill that we know the President will veto, just so the
Republicans can make a political point?
[[Page H300]]
Let's stop wasting the American people's time on such bills. Let's
put politics aside and actually work together to responsibly monitor
implementation of the Iran deal and find ways to strengthen U.S.
leverage in other areas of concern on Iran.
So I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 3662 and reject this rule.
Mr. Speaker, today, the House is also taking up two Republican bills
that would have devastating effects on the environment and our Nation's
public health. The first piece of legislation, S.J. Res. 22, is the
Republican majority's fifth attempt to get rid of the Clean Water Rule.
Here we are, having the same discussion once again, wasting the
American taxpayers' time and money.
The Clean Water Rule was created in response to the Supreme Court
declaring that the Clean Water Act needed to be narrowed and more
clearly defined. So the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers did just
that--they narrowed the scope and provided for much-needed
clarification.
With the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers doing exactly what they were
supposed to do, you would think that would be the end of it. The EPA's
ability to protect our water from pollution has been narrowed and the
industry received the clarification that they wanted.
Unfortunately, my Republican friends are pushing new legislation to
further weaken vital environmental protections.
The final bill before us, H.R. 1644, the STREAM Act, is a bill that
is going nowhere and is the same bill that Republicans brought up last
year, with the only difference being--and this is a major difference, I
guess--but the only difference is that they changed the name.
Otherwise, it is the same thing.
Mr. Speaker, the sole purpose of this Republican bill is to reverse
the rule that the Department of the Interior released last year that
regulates the destructive practice of mountaintop removal mining.
It has long been known that mountaintop removal mining heavily
pollutes drinking water, destroys wildlife habitats, and puts local
communities at greater risk of contracting life-threatening diseases.
Keeping the American people healthy and safe should always be our
first priority in Congress. Yet, this bill is more focused on making it
easier for big energy companies to continue the destructive and
dangerous practice of mountaintop removal and gives no thought
whatsoever to the risks it poses to the American families nearby.
Before the recent rule released by the Department of the Interior in
July 2015, parts of the regulations for mountaintop mining were more
than 30 years old. Updates were clearly long overdue, and the fact that
House Republicans are now actively working against the safeguards
established by the rule is astounding.
Are Republicans so beholden to big coal companies that they would put
the health and safety of our country's families at risk? This bill
clearly suggests that the answer is yes.
Mr. Speaker, we are only 2 weeks into the new year, and instead of
House Republicans starting the year by working in a bipartisan way to
bring serious legislation to the floor, we are, once again, debating
political messaging bills that fail to address the most pressing issues
we face in a constructive way.
There is so much we need to do, and I believe that there is so much
that we can agree on and actually move forward that will get through
both Chambers and go to the White House and be signed and become law
and actually improve things for the people of this country. That is
what we are supposed to be doing here.
Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve a lot better than this.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have got several colleagues here that would like to
weigh in on all three of these issues. But before I turn the floor over
to them, I just wanted to make a comment about the fact that there are
two closed rule bills in this.
All of these issues before us today have been thoroughly vetted. They
have been through the committee process. They have had ample
opportunity for people to weigh in.
In fact, one of the bills is in a structured rule. Actually, we are
allowing four amendments. Three of those amendments are from the
Democratic side. So I think that there is ample opportunity for all
people to make their feelings known on this legislation in front of us.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that transparency, public
involvement, and anything that the administration, that this government
does, is not a waste of time. In fact, it is our duty to make sure that
the public has the ability to see what its government is doing, to make
sure it is done in the light of day.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Smith), my good friend.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and, certainly, the
underlying legislation.
Despite abundantly clear congressional intent to limit Federal
jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act to only navigable waters, the
waters of the United States rule will expand EPA's jurisdiction to
nearly all areas with any hydrological connection to navigable waters.
This rule relied on--and I want to quote here General Peabody of the
Army Corps of Engineers--``inappropriate assumptions with no connection
to the data provided, misapplied data, analytical deficiencies, and
logical inconsistencies.''
In fact, the Army Corps, the joint author of the rule, was so
concerned about the EPA's methods, they wanted their name and logo
removed from EPA documents.
Furthermore, it has now come to light that the EPA broke Federal law
by engaging in a propaganda campaign to carry out this agenda behind
their rule.
Congress has a responsibility to guard against these bureaucratic
power grabs by executive agencies. This is why I introduced the
companion bill to the underlying legislation immediately after the rule
was finalized. The resolution has gained more than 70 cosponsors, with
supporters from both sides of the aisle.
Thanks to the expedited procedures established under the
Congressional Review Act, when we vote on this legislation tomorrow,
the bill will proceed directly to the President's desk.
Tomorrow's vote will also mark the second time legislation has passed
out of the House of Representatives to repeal the waters of the U.S.
rule with bipartisan support.
My hope is the President will listen to the American people, listen
to their concerns, local officials, small-business men and women, and
begin pursuing policies which expand economic opportunity, and not
stifle innovation with one regulation after another.
{time} 1315
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to something the gentleman from
Washington said when he basically made the statement that as long as
committees take action, we don't need open rules. That is a whole new
approach to the way this place is being run. I thought the Speaker of
the House made it very clear he wanted more open rules. The previous
Speaker of the House did, too. He didn't do that.
The bottom line is just because a committee took action on it, there
are 435 Members of this House, and not everybody is on the same
committee. We ought to be able to have a free-flowing debate, and
people ought to be able to offer amendments. We ought to deliberate.
I am going to make a prediction that, if we did have an opportunity
to truly be a deliberative body, you might get better legislation, and
you might get legislation that gets lots of bipartisan support and
actually gets signed into law and we get things done. Instead, we are
stuck in this pattern where we really don't have regular order. We have
order enforced with an iron fist where people are just locked out. It
is not just Democrats that are locked out of the process; it is
Republicans as well. When you close a rule down completely, it means
nobody--nobody--has an opportunity to offer anything.
[[Page H301]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Sherman), the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on
Asia and the Pacific.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the portion of the rule
that deals with the Iran terrorism bill.
I have voted for every Iran sanctions bill to come to this floor. I
helped draft many of them, and I am ready to draft, work on, and vote
for Iran sanctions bills in the future even if they are opposed by the
administration. Keep in mind, nearly every Iran sanctions bill, which
has passed this House floor, became law, and gave us at least some
leverage over Iran, was opposed by the then-George W. Bush
administration and by this administration.
We need a good process to draft good legislation that will do what
President Obama promised we would do, and that is adopt new sanctions
designed to change Iran's behavior with regard to its nonnuclear
wrongdoing, its support for terrorism, its missile test in violation of
U.N. Security Council resolutions, its human rights record, and its
seizure of American hostages.
Unfortunately, this is a flawed bill which is the product of a flawed
process. Look at the process: 100 cosponsors, all from one party, with
no Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee invited to help draft the
bill or even invited to cosponsor it.
Now this process is epitomized by a closed rule. The gentleman from
Washington offers a new definition of an open rule. An open rule is a
closed rule on a bill that has been considered by a committee. That is
the new definition of ``open rule.'' I suggest we keep the old
definition.
This is a closed rule that prevents people from offering amendments
that might have had a better chance of passing on the floor than they
would have in committee. A Member should be free to offer amendments
both on the floor and in committee if they are a member of the
committee; but this is a closed rule, and this process of a closed rule
prevents amendments to fix flaws in the bill.
There are at least two. The first is that the bill deprives the
President of the authority to delist some 489 entities. It locks them
on to the SDN list, but it leaves out 269 other entities, creating two
classes of wrongdoing companies and other entities that sponsor and
facilitate terrorism for no apparent reason. An entity stays on the
list until the President issues a certification, a certification that
no President could ever certify. You have to certify that we know that
from the beginning of time the entity has not had any dealing with any
of dozens of different terrorist organizations. That is a certification
designed to be impossible and designed to lock entities in.
I look forward to a bipartisan process. For example, I have a bill
that has been cosponsored by the current and immediate prior chair of
the Foreign Affairs Committee. There are other bills subject to a
bipartisan process because we do need new sanctions on Iran to change
its nonnuclear wrongdoing. Those sanctions are warranted because Iran
has engaged in the missile test in violation of the U.N. Security
Council resolution, because its support for terrorism is responsible
for the deaths of tens of thousands of people in Syria and Yemen, and
because it used to hold four but now holds five American hostages, not
to mention its other human rights records. It is consistent with
administration policy that we have sanctions on Iran's nonnuclear
behavior.
The negotiations in Vienna, the negotiations on this deal, left out
all of Iran's nonnuclear behavior, not because it was intended to give
them carte blanche, not because we were accepting their support for
terrorism, but because these were to be the subject of other sanctions
and other efforts to force a change in Iran's behavior.
Finally, the question is, well, do sanctions work? That is the one
thing the opponents and proponents of the deal agreed on. The
proponents of the deal said that the sanctions have brought us a very
good deal. The opponents of the deal said that more sanctions will get
us a better deal. So in a House that was divided on almost every aspect
of Iran policy, the one thing we agreed on was that sanctions have the
capacity to change Iran's behavior.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The time of the gentleman
has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from California an
additional 1 minute.
Mr. SHERMAN. So the President promised that we would not abandon our
efforts with regard to Iran's terrorism and with regard to Iran's
hostage taking, and that we would not abandon the four hostages they
had then or the additional hostage that they have taken since the deal,
and that we would not turn a blind eye to the fact that Iran is the
single most important ally of the butcher Assad, who has killed over
200,000 of his own people, not to mention Iran's support for terrorism
in Yemen.
Mr. Speaker, we should not fail to do so simply because we have a
deal that was exclusively, strictly, and explicitly limited to dealing
with Iran's nuclear program. That said, the bill before this House
today is a flawed bill that cannot be corrected because of a flawed
process. We need a bipartisan process that crafts a policy toward
Iran's nonnuclear wrongdoing that unites, if not all of this House, a
large majority of this House.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make the point that
it is customary, whether Republicans are in control or whether
Democrats control, that the CRAs, the Congressional Review Acts, come
to the floor under a closed rule. I might also say that, regarding the
STREAM Act, all amendments that were germane were made in order. As it
comes to the bill pertaining to Iran, that bill was marked up in
committee last week. No amendments were offered, and the bill passed on
voice vote.
Having made those points, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
good gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule.
Tonight President Obama will deliver his final State of the Union,
where I expect he will celebrate his supposed achievements over the
last 7 years. Outside the beltway, and especially in western
Pennsylvania, there is little to celebrate about the Obama Presidency.
The war on coal has been a central feature of Washington's misguided
efforts over the past several years, and it has caused the loss of over
40,000 jobs in the coal industry across the country and economic
hardship in coal country.
Later today we will vote on the STREAM Act, which challenges OSM's
so-called stream protection rule. I am a cosponsor of this legislation,
and I look forward to its passage.
The stream protection rule is yet another block in the wall of
regulation that President Obama has been building the last 7 years. It
will lead to the loss of thousands of jobs, and it will reduce coal
reserves by 41 percent. That amounts to a $20 billion loss to the
economy.
Just yesterday we learned of the bankruptcy of yet another coal
company. The job losses, firm closures, and disruptions to our
communities are real, and they cannot be ignored any longer. This is an
attack on cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy, and it will result in
more control from Washington of the economy and the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my fellow Members to support the passage of this
rule and the associated bills.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I again continue to be amazed that the gentleman from
Washington defends this process. I don't know how anybody can defend
this process, it is so flawed. The end result is, again, bringing bills
to the floor that are going nowhere and that are sound bites. They are
not serious legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration
Policy on all three bills in which the White House says they will veto
these bills.
Statement of Administration Policy
h.r. 1644--stream act
(Rep. Mooney, R-WV, and 34 cosponsors, Jan. 11, 2016)
The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1644, which would
delay for at least three years updated regulations, known as
the Stream Protection Rule, to protect streams
[[Page H302]]
from the effects of destructive surface coal mining
practices. Such a needless delay of these important
safeguards would impact the communities and economies that
depend on clean water and a healthy environment.
The current stream protection requirements governing
surface mining activities are more than 30 years old and do
not incorporate significant advances in scientific knowledge
and mining and reclamation techniques. An arbitrary three
year restriction to block the updated modern, science-based
regulations would significantly impair the ability of the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE)
to accomplish the mission and responsibilities the Congress
laid out in the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977, including preserving clean water, human health, and the
environment.
H.R. 1644 would prevent the restoration of hundreds of
streams, result in deterioration of water quality for
thousands of stream miles, and create sustained regulatory
uncertainty, as well as public health impacts for downstream
communities. In addition, the bill would impose arbitrary
requirements and unnecessary processes that would seriously
impede OSMRE's ability to use the best available science to
protect public health and the environment.
If the President were presented with H.R. 1644, his senior
advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
Statement of Administration Policy
s.j. res. 22--disapproving epa/army rule on waters of the united states
(Sen. Ernst, R-IA, and 49 cosponsors, Nov. 3, 2015)
The Administration strongly opposes S.J. Res. 22, which
would nullify a specified Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the Department of the Army (Army) final rule
clarifying the jurisdictional boundaries of the Clean Water
Act (CWA). The agencies' rulemaking, grounded in science and
the law, is essential to ensure clean water for future
generations, and is responsive to calls for rulemaking from
the Congress, industry, and community stakeholders as well as
decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. The final rule has been
through an extensive public engagement process.
Clean water is vital for the success of the Nation's
businesses, agriculture, energy development, and the health
of our communities. More than one in three Americans get
their drinking water from rivers, lakes, and reservoirs that
are at risk of pollution from upstream sources. The
protection of wetlands is also vital for hunting and fishing.
When Congress passed the CWA in 1972 to restore the Nation's
waters, it recognized that to have healthy communities
downstream, we need to protect the smaller streams and
wetlands upstream.
Clarifying the scope of the CWA helps to protect clean
water, safeguard public health, and strengthen the economy.
Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 focused on specific
jurisdictional determinations and rejected the analytical
approach that the Army Corps of Engineers used for those
determinations, but did not invalidate the underlying
regulation. This has created ongoing questions and
uncertainty about how the regulation is applied consistent
with the Court's decisions. The final rule was developed to
address this uncertainty and it should remain in place.
If enacted, S.J. Res. 22 would nullify years of work and
deny businesses and communities the regulatory certainty
needed to invest in projects that rely on clean water. EPA
and Army have sought the views of and listened carefully to
the public throughout the extensive public engagement process
for this rule.
Simply put, S.J. Res. 22 is not an act of good governance.
It would sow confusion and invite conflict at a time when our
communities and businesses need clarity and certainty around
clean water regulation.
If the President were presented with S.J. Res. 22, his
senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 3662--iran terror finance transparency act
(Rep. Russell, R-OK, and 62 cosponsors, Jan. 11, 2016)
The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3662, the Iran
Terror Finance Transparency Act, which would prevent the
United States from implementing the Joint Comprehensive Plan
of Action (JCPOA) by tying the Administration's ability to
fulfill U.S. commitments under the deal to unrelated, non-
nuclear issues.
H.R. 3662 includes provisions that connect the United
States' JCPOA commitment to provide sanctions relief by
delisting certain Iran-related individuals and entities,
including banks, to non-nuclear issues outside of the scope
of the JCPOA. In addition, certain provisions would
effectively preclude delisting of individuals or entities on
Implementation Day of the JCPOA--the day on which the
International Atomic Energy Agency verifies that Iran has
completed key nuclear-related steps that significantly
dismantle and constrain its nuclear program--based on
activity that may have taken place and ended long before
Implementation Day and involving persons or activity that
will no longer be sanctioned post-Implementation Day. By
preventing the United States from fulfilling its JCPOA
commitments, H.R. 3662 could result in the collapse of a
comprehensive diplomatic arrangement that peacefully and
verifiably prevents Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Such a collapse would remove the unprecedented constraints on
Iran's nuclear program that we achieved in the JCPOA, lead to
the unraveling of the international sanctions regime against
Iran, and deal a devastating blow to America's credibility as
a leader of international diplomacy. This would have ripple
effects, jeopardizing the hard work of sustaining a unified
coalition to combat Iran's destabilizing activities in the
region, calling into question the effectiveness of our
sanctions regime and our ability to lead the world on nuclear
non-proliferation.
The Administration has consistently made clear that the
purpose of the nuclear negotiations, and ultimately the
JCPOA, was to address one issue only--the international
community's concerns over Iran's nuclear program and to
verifiably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The
JCPOA is the mechanism through which the United States was
able to garner international support for our sanctions and
achieve a diplomatic resolution.
As we address our concerns with Iran's nuclear program
through implementation of the JCPOA, the Administration
remains clear-eyed and shares the deep concerns of the
Congress and the American people about Iran's support for
terrorism. Powerful sanctions targeting Iran's support for
terrorism, its ballistic missile activities, its human rights
abuses, and its destabilizing activities in the region remain
in effect. Anyone worldwide who transacts with or supports
individuals or entities sanctioned in connection with Iran's
support for terrorism or development of WMD and their means
of delivery, including missiles--or who does the same with
any Iranian individual or entity who remains on Treasury's
Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List--puts
themselves at risk of being sanctioned.
The President has made it clear that he will veto any
legislation that prevents the successful implementation of
the JCPOA. If the President were presented with H.R. 3662, he
would veto the bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement from
the Win Without War coalition, 11 million activists across the country
in opposition to H.R. 3662.
A Statement From Drew Proctor, Advocacy Director of ``Win Without War''
The Win Without War coalition, on behalf of our 11 million
activists, urges your office to stand strong against all
attempts to undermine the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
in Congress.
In particular, we urge Representative McGovern to OPPOSE
H.R. 3662, the Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act.
H.R. 3662, which would prohibit President Obama from
delivering on sanctions relief, has the potential to damage
the leadership and credibility of the United States at this
critical moment just before the historic agreement is
implemented. Furthermore, the timing of the House's vote--
between President Obama's State of the Union speech and the
deal's implementation date later this month--appears to be a
deliberately partisan act designed to undermine the President
and weaken his legacy. At a time when much of the Middle East
is engulfed in war, the US has rightfully seized this
opportunity to solve one of our most pressing national
security threats without dropping a single bomb. We must not
let political interests trump our national security goals.
Huge progress has been made since the Iran deal was announced
last July. Just yesterday, Iran reportedly took steps to
remove the core of its plutonium reactor and fill it with
concrete.
Sincerely,
Drew Proctor,
Advocacy Director,
Win Without War.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 65
environmental organizations representing millions of members in
opposition to H.J. Res. 22.
January 12, 2016.
Representative: The undersigned organizations, and our
millions of members and supporters, oppose the Dirty Water
Resolution (S.J. Res. 22). The ``Resolution of Disapproval''
under the Congressional Review Act attacks the Clean Water
Rule, the Obama administration's landmark initiative to
restore safeguards against pollution and destruction for
lakes, streams, wetlands and other water bodies.
The Clean Water Rule restores important safeguards that
once existed for a variety of water bodies. Those safeguards
were eroded after a pair of Supreme Court decisions and by
policies the Bush administration adopted, which left many
water bodies inadequately protected or lacking the pollution
control requirements of the Clean Water Act. The rule
restores prior protections for many critical wetlands, which
curb flooding, filter pollution, and provide habitat for a
wide variety of wildlife, including endangered species and
wildfowl and fish prized by hunters and anglers.
The Dirty Water Resolution is an extreme action that seeks
to kill the Clean Water Rule using the Congressional Review
Act, which goes far beyond stopping a disapproved
administrative action. The Congressional Review Act says that
an agency may not adopt ``a new rule that is substantially
the same'' as the disapproved rule, and the breadth of that
requirement is very unclear.
[[Page H303]]
In the context of the Clean Water Rule, it could be read to
prohibit EPA and the Army Corps from issuing any rule that
establishes protections for waters that the Clean Water Rule
covers, like lakes, streams, and wetlands. The Dirty Water
Resolution radically undermines the agencies' ability to
clarify the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act--despite
urging from industry associations, conservation groups,
members of Congress, state and local leaders, and Supreme
Court justices for such a clarification.
By pursuing this anti-clean water resolution, pro-polluter
members of the House of Representatives are seeking to kill a
commonsense and modest rule containing scientifically-sound
and legally-valid protections for the nation's waters,
including critical drinlcing water supplies.
Restored clean water protections enjoy broad support. In
polling for the American Sustainable Business Council, eighty
percent of small business owners--including 91% of Democrats,
73% of Independents and 78% of Republicans--said they
supported the then-proposed Clean Water Rule. A strong
majority, 71%, also said that clean water protections are
necessary to ensure economic growth; only six percent said
they were bad for growth. Similarly, a bipartisan research
team polled hunters and anglers nationwide and discovered
that 83% surveyed thought that the Environmental Protection
Agency should apply the rules and standards of the Clean
Water Act to smaller, headwater streams and wetlands. Support
for this policy was strong across the political spectrum,
with 77% of Republicans, 79% of Independents and 97% of
Democrats in favor.
We ask that you oppose the Dirty Water Resolution (S.J.
Res. 22) because it will undermine protections for our
drinking water supplies, flood buffers, and fish and wildlife
habitat. This attack on clean water is not only a waste of
the House's time but also an excessive and dangerous act that
jeopardizes clean water for generations to come.
Sincerely,
Alliance for the Great Lakes, American Rivers, American
Whitewater, Amigos Bravos, Arkansas Public Policy Panel,
BlueGreen Alliance, Central Minnesota Chapter of Audubon,
Clean Water Action, Conservation Minnesota, Earthjustice,
Endangered Habitats League, Environment America, Environment
California, Environment Colorado, Environment Connecticut,
Environment Florida, Environment Georgia, Environment
Illinois, Environment Iowa, Environment Maine, Environment
Maryland, Environment Massachusetts.
Environment Michigan, Environment Minnesota, Environment
Montana, Environment New Hampshire, Environment New Jersey,
Environment New Mexico, Environment New York, Environment
North Carolina, Environment Oregon, Environment Texas,
Environment Virginia, Environment Washington, Freshwater
Future, Friends of the Cloquet Valley State Park, Friends of
the Mississippi River, Great Lakes Committee--the Izaak
Walton League, GreenLatinos, Greenpeace, Gulf Restoration
Network, Hoosier Environmental Council, Iowa Environmental
Council, Kentucky Waterways Alliance.
League of Conservation Voters, Michigan Wildlife
Conservancy, Midwest Environmental Advocates, Minnesota
Center for Environmental Advocacy, Minnesota Conservation
Federation, Minnesota Environmental Partnership, Missouri
Coalition for the Environment, Natural Resources Defense
Council, Nature Abounds, Ohio Wetlands Association,
PennEnvironment, Prairie Rivers Network, Religious Coalition
for the Great Lakes, River Network, Save the Dunes, Shaker
Lakes Garden Club, Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law
Center, Surfrider Foundation, Tennessee Clean Water Network,
Wisconsin Environment, Wisconsin Wildlife Federation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from
eight sportsmen and conservation organizations in strong opposition to
S.J. Res. 22.
January 11, 2016.
Re Hunters and Anglers Strongly Oppose S.J. Res. 22
Invalidating the Final Clean Water Rule
Dear Representative: The undersigned sportsmen and
conservation organizations strongly oppose Senate Joint
Resolution 22, which the House of Representatives may vote on
this week and would invalidate the final Clean Water Rule.
This important rule clarifies Clean Water Act jurisdiction in
a manner that is both legally and scientifically sound.
This joint resolution is an extraordinary and radical
action to overturn a fundamental, once-in-a-generation final
rule that is critical to the effective implementation of the
1972 Clean Water Act, and that was adopted following an
exhaustive public rulemaking process. The resolution would
overturn a rule that finally resolves longstanding confusion
and debate, promotes clarity and efficiency for regulatory
programs promoting river health, and preserves longstanding
protections for farmers, ranchers, and foresters.
By using the Congressional Review Act, this joint
resolution not only wipes out the final Clean Water Rule but
also prohibits any substantially similar rule in the future.
It locks in the current state of jurisdictional confusion and
offers no constructive path forward for regulatory clarity or
clean water. America's hunters and anglers cannot afford to
have Congress undermine effective Clean Water Act safeguards,
leaving communities and valuable fish and wildlife habitat at
risk indefinitely.
This joint resolution dismisses the voices of the millions
of Americans, including businesses that depend on clean
water, who support the new rule and are eager to reap its
benefits. The agencies engaged in a very transparent and
thorough multi-year rulemaking process that included over 400
stakeholder meetings and an extended public comment period
that produced over one million comments. Nearly 900,000
members of the public commented in support of the Clean Water
Rule. A recent poll found that 83 percent of sportsmen and
women think the Clean Water Act should apply to smaller
streams and wetlands, as the new rule directs.
The Clean Water Rule clearly restores longstanding
protections for millions of wetlands and headwater streams
that contribute to the drinking water of 1 in 3 Americans,
protect communities from flooding, and provide essential fish
and wildlife habitat that supports a robust outdoor
recreation economy. The sport fishing industry alone accounts
for 828,000 jobs, nearly $50 billion annually in retail
sales, and an economic impact of about $115 billion every
year that relies on access to clean water. The Clean Water
Rule will translate directly to an improved bottom line for
America's outdoor industry.
Opponents claiming the rule goes too far and protects water
too much have filed a barrage of nearly identical legal
challenges in numerous district and appellate courts across
the country. On October 9, 2015, the 6th Circuit Court of
Appeals temporarily stayed the Clean Water Rule nationwide.
The Clean Water Rule and those who oppose it will have their
day in court.
Meanwhile, we want Congress to know that despite these
legal challenges, conservationists across the nation are
steadfast in our support for the Clean Water Rule. After
nearly 15 years of Clean Water Act confusion, further delay
is unacceptable to the millions of hunters and anglers eager
to have their local waters fully protected again. We are
confident that, when the dust settles in the courts, the
Clean Water Rule will withstand challenges saying it protects
our water too much.
The Clean Water Act has always been about restoring and
maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of the Nation's waters. It is bedrock support for America's
more than 40 million hunters and anglers and for the 117
million Americans whose drinking water depends on healthy
headwater streams.
We thank all of the members of Congress who stand with
America's sportsmen and women to block attempts to derail the
rule, and ask you to reject S.J. Res. 22 and any other
legislative action against the rule that may follow this
year.
Sincerely,
American Fisheries Society, American Fly Fishing Trade
Association, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, International
Federation of Fly Fishers, Izaak Walton League of America,
National Wildlife Federation, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
Partnership, Trout Unlimited.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from nine
public interest, environmental, and labor organizations strongly
opposing H.R. 1644.
January 11, 2016.
Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members
and supporters we strongly urge you to oppose the stream
pollution bill, H.R. 1644, a bill expected on the House floor
the week of January 11, 2016. This bill would put costly and
unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles in the already overburdened
regulatory process with the sole intent of ensuring that coal
companies can continue to destroy streams with coal wastes.
The present rules protecting such streams date to 1983.
After the Department of Interior took several years to
develop the proposed Stream Protection Rule, this bill
requires a new study, this time by the National Academy of
Sciences, on the effectiveness of the current decades-old
surface mining regulation. The bill carves out two years for
the completion of that study and then bars DOI from updating
the rule for an additional year after that. In the meantime,
communities will continue to shoulder the burden of water
pollution and mining abuses. The intent of these new delays
is clear: let the mining companies continue unimpeded with
sacrificing the streams and health of the communities that
surround their mines.
Another section of the bill adds new procedural hurdles
before DOI can act under the surface mining law. Today, the
Secretary and the heads of all rulemaking agencies regularly
make available all the information relied upon concurrently
with the proposed or final rule. Doing so enables
stakeholders to weigh in during the public comment period on
the basis for the proposal. This bill requires DOI to publish
all scientific data used in a proposed rule 90 days before
publication. It is unclear what the intent of this redundant
provision is other than to congest the regulatory system with
even more process and delay. If the Agency fails to meet this
new paperwork burden, the goal of the authors is met--the
protections must be delayed even further.
Unfortunately, these types of delay tactics are becoming
increasingly common across
[[Page H304]]
the regulatory spectrum as polluters attempt to dodge their
responsibilities. Thus, H.R. 1644 continues a dangerous trend
of undermining public health and environmental protections
under the guise of transparency. We urge you to vote against
this legislation, both to protect mining communities and to
our reject attempts to delay and frustrate improved
regulatory protections.
Sincerely,
Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Effective
Government, Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of
Concerned Scientists, Economic Policy Institute, Institute
for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Natural Resources Defense
Council, Public Citizen, United Auto Workers, United States
Public Interest Research Group.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the
Union of Concerned Scientists in strong opposition to H.R. 1644.
Union of Concerned Scientists,
September 9, 2015.
Dear Representative: The Union of Concerned Scientists,
with 450,000 members and supporters throughout the country,
strongly opposes The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 1644, the STREAM ACT. H.R. 1644, as amended, would
require the public disclosure of any and all information used
to promulgate rules, and even policy guidance, relating to
the Surface Mining and Control Act.
As we highlighted in Science, this proposal is just another
example of what's becoming an old and tired song: an attempt
to cloak an effort to block common-sense regulation in the
guise of transparency. Furthermore, as we noted in a letter
sent to the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this year
opposing H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act, this type
of proposal represents a solution in search of a problem and
greatly impedes the agency's responsibility to protect public
health and the environment.
The amended version improves the original bill by exempting
certain types of data from public disclosure. However, the
language is so vague, it will make it very difficult for
scientists doing federally-funded research to know whether or
not the data they have spent years collecting may be
prematurely disclosed before they can publish their own
studies. At the very least, this discourages scientists from
doing any crucial research that may be required to be
publicly disclosed.
Worse, by linking agency rulemaking to public disclosure,
this bill risks the timely implementation of regulations and
guidance documents that protect the public health and safety
and our environment. Agency rules will be delayed if any
piece of underlying data used to inform rules or guidance
documents is not publicly disclosed 90 days before the
proposed rule or guidance is published. This is flawed
because the data is not owned by the Department of Interior
and the release of the data is under the researcher's
control. For each day the data is delayed, the comment period
is extended by a day. If the delay lasts longer than six
months, the rule must be withdrawn.
These restrictions apply even to emergency rules, unless a
delay ``will pose an imminent and severe threat to human
life.'' Notably missing here however is the environment. For
example, if a stream is polluted at a level that doesn't pose
an immediate risk but may pose a long-term risk, under this
proposal, the environmental pollution could not be stopped
until it might be too late.
This proposal offers special interests a new way to game
the system, by challenging the comprehensiveness of any data
that the Department of Interior submits to fulfill the bill's
requirements. Who decides when the data includes ``all the
data?'' How much data, for example, must be released to
justify an economic assessment, or an environmental analysis
or a guidance document?
Unanswered, too, is the question whether a regulation or
guidance document based on exempt information is considered
valid for purposes of this bill. Could the use of exempt
information itself be grounds for a challenge?
This bill would also expend taxpayer dollars by requiring
the Department of Interior to spend $2 million on a study to
evaluate the ``effectiveness'' of 1983 regulation to protect
perennial and intermittent streams through the use of stream
buffer zones. But the goal of the study is not to actually
help the Department of Interior become a better custodian of
our environment.
The real goal is to impose a sweeping moratorium on all
regulations related to stream buffer zones for the time it
takes the National Academy of Sciences to complete the
``comprehensive study'' plus another year for review. Since
the bill anticipates funding for the NAS in both 2016 and
2017, Interior regulations would be blocked for at least
three years. If the study is never funded though, the rules
would be indefinitely delayed.
We recommend that you oppose Representative Mooney's
amendment to H.R. 1644, as well as the underlying bill. The
proposal would inhibit the Department of Interior's ability
to carry out its science and evidence-based responsibility to
protect human health and the environment. We strongly urge
you not to report this proposal out of committee.
Sincerely,
Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D.,
Director, Center for Science and
Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
the great State of Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Speaker, for 20 years, Republican and
Democratic administrations, alike, have effectively regulated navigable
waters--which is the official term--under the Clean Water Act to
protect both our environment and private property, but the Obama
administration is trying to change all of that. The Obama
Administration's new definition will give the EPA authority over every
pond or seasonal stream, drainage ditch, or puddle in the United
States--every single one. Every piece of land where water falls from
the heavens, the EPA is claiming control over.
What does that mean if you want to put a deck on your house or move
your driveway or build a shed or something similar? It means you are
going to have to apply to the Federal Government for a permit.
What do those permits look like? They take upwards of 788 days to
obtain, and they cost upwards of $270,000 to get per permit, per
puddle, per ditch, or per stream that you want to amend.
So I hope you are either really rich and have a ton of time on your
hands or you don't want to ever change anything because this is almost
impossible.
I would call this new change a solution in search of a problem, but
it is a solution that is going to create a problem. There is no
evidence that this is going to give us stronger environmental
protections, that we are going to have cleaner water, or that we are
even going to have a benefit. What is really going to happen is the EPA
is going to be kingmaker; and you and I, as Americans, are going to be
forced to grovel at their feet, begging for permits on our own land.
This really impacts those of us in the West tremendously. Every
American should sit up and pay attention because this impacts
everybody, including cities and counties.
I hope you don't need a new hospital in your area or you don't need a
grocery store or perhaps your city needs to expand or grow or change,
because this effectively says that one agency, headed by very political
and liberal--at this point, very liberal--ideologues will get to make
that decision, and they are not going to give us the benefit. That is
the scary thing here.
So I look forward to joining with Republicans and commonsense
Democrats, because believe it or not, just like in years past,
Republicans and Democrats are both opposed to this, to put this block
in place and to move forward.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just simply say that there is a difference
between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the environment,
protecting the health and well-being of the people of this country,
especially from industry. I think we, on the Democratic side, have
consistently been on the side of protecting people, and my friends on
the other side have been consistently on the side of industry, no
matter what it means to people.
We see what is going on in Flint, Michigan, right now and the
terrible water crisis that is happening there and the Republican
Governor who is part of what appears to be a coverup at the expense of
those citizens. It really is quite astonishing.
{time} 1330
Again, this bill is going nowhere. It is going to be vetoed by the
White House. So we can go through this charade.
I would just conclude right now, at least this portion of my speech
here, by saying that, as I said in the beginning, if, in fact, my
friends on the other side of the aisle want to get serious about
legislating, there are areas of agreement on these environmental
issues, and certainly on this issue regarding Iran, where Democrats and
Republicans can come together. But for whatever reason, I think my
Republican friends have no interest in serious legislating. I think
that is regrettable because what we are doing here is wasting taxpayer
money and wasting the people's time here in this Congress. We could be
doing other things that could actually be moving this country forward.
[[Page H305]]
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Hill).
Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington (Mr.
Newhouse) for yielding.
In my capacity as a member of the House Committee on Financial
Services' Task Force to Investigate Terrorism Financing and as a
businessperson with over three decades of experience in both
international affairs and banking, I have carefully considered the
testimony of leading foreign policy experts cautioning against America
blindly putting its faith in a country that has never done anything to
make them worthy of that trust.
The nuclear agreement has only emboldened the Iranian regime. And why
wouldn't it? When one sees the recent results of President Clinton's
agreement with North Korea and this administration's lack of resolve
and realism, why not?
I remind this body, Secretary Kerry, and the President of the warning
issued to the House of Commons by Winston Churchill: ``An appeaser is
one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last.''
The Iranians have kidnapped another American, taken deliveries of
missile technology from Russia, conducted missile tests in violation of
U.N. Security Council resolutions, and ramped up the actions and
rhetoric against our Arab allies. All of this is disturbing. This is
all before Iran has even received a dime of up to $100 billion in
expected sanctions relief.
When he announced the nuclear agreement, the President said:
``American sanctions on Iran for its support of terrorism, its human
rights abuses, its ballistic missile program, will continue to be fully
enforced.''
The bill discussed in this rule, H.R. 3662, guarantees that. This
bill removes the politicization of the listed entities in the nuclear
agreement and forces this President to live up to his own rhetoric.
I am proud to support this critical piece of legislation. I call on
all Members to support the rule and final passage of the bill and help
guarantee the safety of the American people and our allies around the
world from one of our most credible threats to our national security.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just say to the gentleman that, if this were a serious effort
to do something in response to Iran's behavior, this would be a
bipartisan effort, but it isn't. It is clear what this is. This is a
way to basically try to embarrass the President, I guess. That seems to
be the motivation behind almost everything that is brought to this
House floor.
Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we ought to be doing serious business
here, and we are not. One of the things that we have been trying to do
on our side is to bring to the floor legislation and amendments to deal
with the terrible situation with regard to gun violence in our country.
We are rebuffed at every moment. We can't bring anything to this floor
with regard to guns, I guess because the Republican Congressional
Campaign Committee doesn't want to tick off the National Rifle
Association.
Be that as it may, I want to urge my colleagues to defeat the
previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to
bring up bipartisan legislation--this is actually Democrats and
Republicans who support this--that would close a glaring loophole in
our gun laws allowing suspected terrorists to legally buy firearms.
This bill would bar the sale of firearms and explosives to those on the
FBI's terrorist watch list.
Mr. Speaker, amidst gun violence in communities across our country
and global acts of terrorism, it is time for Congress to act and keep
guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists.
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 Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the life of me, I can't understand why
somehow it is okay to bar suspected terrorists from flying on
airplanes, but somehow it is this terrible infringement on their rights
to say that they can't go out and buy a firearm. It makes absolutely no
sense. I don't think the American people--whether you are Democrat or
Republican or Independent--can figure out why people are so resistant
to that here in this Congress.
Here is a novel idea. bring it to the floor. Allow us to have an up-
or-down vote, not just a procedural vote, but a real up-or-down vote on
this, and I am willing to bet that it will probably pass with a
bipartisan vote.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, if it embarrasses the President to be held
accountable for the very words that come out of his mouth, I guess
there is not much we can do about that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
LaMalfa).
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Washington for
yielding me the time.
I guess if we want to advance policy around here, the rhetoric coming
from across the aisle about it being a waste of time to legislate and
put these ideas out in front of the American people and hold the
President accountable for the runaway efforts by his administration and
his agencies, then we are just not hearing an honest effort on the
other side.
We have half-baked regulations that will damage sectors of our
economy in this 262 pages of revised rules that are coming down from
the Department of the Interior. Since 1983, the stream buffer zone rule
has been a rule that has struck a pretty good balance between
protecting water resources and mining. Adding 262 new pages effectively
bans all mining within 100 feet of anything that they might define as a
stream, which is going to have very detrimental effects on energy and
our ability to conduct business in this Nation.
The new rule would lead to the loss of thousands of jobs, damage our
Nation's ability to produce critical minerals, construction materials,
and domestic energy, something that we have had an advantage on up
until recently.
While Interior claims to have spent 6 years studying this rule, it
managed to completely ignore the views of the States impacted by the
rule. I think we need to have more local input and support to H.R. 1644
and hold the administration accountable for what it does.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Carter), my good friend.
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and passage of S.J.
Res. 22, which provides congressional disapproval on EPA's extreme
overreach with their waters of the U.S. rule.
Last June, the EPA published its final orders of the U.S. rule that
would virtually give them authority over any place water flows or
accumulates. This would include driveways, ditches, manmade ponds, and
even our watered lawns.
Currently, private and public entities spend an average of $271,000
and wait an average of 788 days to obtain permits from the EPA for
projects currently under its jurisdiction. Expanding EPA's authority in
this unprecedented way would be extremely devastating to landowners,
especially farmers, and make devastating statistics even worse.
With this bill, Congress would nullify this ridiculous rule and
continue to provide Americans with personal control over their
property. Property is not an asset that can be taken control of on the
whim of a government agency. Property rights are an essential natural
right of every American, and this fact has been embedded in our
country's DNA since its beginning.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and S.J. Res. 22 so we can
prevent this terrible law from infringing on the natural rights of all
Americans.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have heard a couple of speakers now talk on this, and I think some
of the confusion might be cleared up if they actually read the rule.
The gentlewoman from Washington who spoke earlier talked about that
this would regulate puddles. Well, the
[[Page H306]]
clean water rule does not regulate puddles. In fact, numerous comments
were submitted to EPA asking the Agency specifically to exclude
puddles. I have got good news for you: the final rules does just that,
and the clean water rule does not regulate most ditches either. We
might as well get those facts on the table.
I would urge my colleagues on the other side that maybe they ought to
read the rule before they come up with a bill like the one they came up
with.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know what else to say, other than the fact that
this process stinks. Again, two closed rules and a structured rule on
the third bill.
We have a controversial bill on Iran that is one of the most partisan
pieces of legislation on foreign policy that has been brought to this
floor by my Republican friends. It is really frustrating because I
think there is a lot of common ground on holding Iran accountable where
Democrats and Republicans could come together and actually craft
something that had, if not unanimous support, almost unanimous support.
I think that would be a powerful signal to send not only to Iran, but
to the rest of the world. But instead of going down that road, my
Republican friends decided to squander that opportunity and come up
with a political sound bite.
The same goes for the two environmental bills that are being brought
before this House. They are going nowhere, but they are nice sound
bites, and they may please a particular special interest, but this is
not serious legislating.
I am going to say to my colleagues again, I know you are going on
your retreat this week, and maybe there ought to be a side meeting that
some of my friends have about what it is that they think we ought to be
doing here in this Chamber and what it is that they think that their
job ought to be. I would suggest that it has to be about more than just
political sound bites and messaging bills.
There is a lot that we need to get done. That requires us working
together. I won't get everything I want and you may not get everything
you want, but we need to figure out a way to make this place work
because it is not working. There is a reason why the approval rating of
Congress is like in the negative numbers. It is because people see
consistently nothing but political sound bites and messaging bills come
to the floor and get voted on and we debate them passionately, but they
go nowhere. I think people would like us all better, Democrats and
Republicans, if we actually accomplished something.
I hope you go on your retreat and you kind of reflect on that, and
maybe you will come back the week after with a new outlook. Maybe all
of these promises from the Speaker of the House and the previous
Speaker of the House about a more open process about regular order will
be more than words when you come back.
I would finally say again that I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on
the previous question so we can bring up this commonsense bipartisan
bill to basically prevent those who are on the terrorist watch list
from being sold guns.
Again, I, for the life of me, don't understand why it is so
controversial, but in this House of Representatives it is.
Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Vote ``no'' on this closed
rule, and reject this closed process.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the good gentleman's wishes for a good retreat for the
Republicans this coming next few days, and I look forward to finding
opportunities to work together with his side of the aisle on many
important things facing our Nation.
I just would remind them, too, that there have been plenty of
opportunities for all Members of this body to have input on these
pieces of legislation before us through committee, here on the floor,
in Rules. I think following regular order is proving exactly what we
wanted it to do to give people that opportunity. I am very happy that
we have been able to do that.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good, straightforward rule that we are
considering today allowing for consideration of three very important
pieces of legislation that I think will protect our national security
interests abroad and hold the administration accountable for sanctions
lifted under the Iran nuclear agreement. It will ensure that mining
communities and hardworking families are not crushed by another
crippling Federal regulation, and it will help protect our rural
western communities by providing much-needed relief from the burdensome
waters of the United States rule.
{time} 1345
Although we may have different viewpoints and differences of opinion,
I believe this rule and the underlying bills are strong measures that
are important to our country's future.
I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 583 as well as the
underlying bills.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 583 Offered by Mr. McGovern
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney
General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of
firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected
dangerous terrorist. 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 the Judiciary. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 1076.
____
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
[[Page H307]]
[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. NEWHOUSE. 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. McGOVERN. 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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233,
nays 173, not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 36]
YEAS--233
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
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
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
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
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--173
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
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kildee
Kilmer
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
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--27
Barletta
Bost
Bridenstine
Cardenas
Comstock
Culberson
Delaney
Duncan (SC)
Eshoo
Grayson
Hinojosa
Hurt (VA)
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kind
Messer
Palazzo
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Schrader
Smith (WA)
Stutzman
Thompson (MS)
Weber (TX)
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1406
Mr. MacARTHUR changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mrs. COMSTOCK. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 36, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for roll call
vote No. 36 on Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 583--The
combined rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1644, H.R. 3662, and
S.J. Res. 22. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I was not present during rollcall vote number
36 on January 12, 2016. I would like to reflect that on rollcall vote
number 36, I would have voted ``no.''
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. McGOVERN. 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 239,
noes 183, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 37]
AYES--239
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
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 (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
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
[[Page H308]]
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
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
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
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--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
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kildee
Kilmer
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
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--11
Barletta
Conyers
Delaney
Duncan (SC)
Kennedy
Kind
Meadows
Palazzo
Smith (WA)
Westmoreland
Williams
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1429
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.
____________________