[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 35 (Thursday, March 3, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H1121-H1128]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4557, BLOCKING REGULATORY
INTERFERENCE FROM CLOSING KILNS ACT OF 2016, AND PROVIDING FOR
PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 4, 2016, THROUGH MARCH 11,
2016
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 635 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 635
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4557) to
allow for judicial review of any final rule addressing
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for
brick and structural clay products or for clay ceramics
manufacturing before requiring compliance with such rule. 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 Energy and Commerce; and (2) one motion to
recommit.
Sec. 2. On any legislative day during the period from
March 4, 2016, through March 11, 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. 3. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kelly of Mississippi). The gentleman
from Alabama is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 635 provides for
consideration of H.R. 4557, the Blocking Regulatory Interference from
Closing Kilns Act of 2016. The resolution provides for a closed rule.
No amendments are made in order, as none were filed with the Rules
Committee. Additionally, the rule also provides for standard
adjournment authority.
H.R. 4557 is an important piece of legislation. It is a bipartisan
bill that addresses an unfortunate recurring theme: overreach by the
EPA that takes jobs away from hardworking Americans.
Last September the EPA finalized the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products and
Clay Ceramics, commonly known as Brick MACT. Only in the Federal
Government would we string that many words together and think it makes
sense.
In that rule, the EPA set stringent standards for brick industry
emissions of mercury and nonmercury pollutants as well as health-based
standards for acid gases.
EPA previously promulgated Brick MACT standards in 2003. That rule
was vacated by a Federal court in 2007, but, by that time, many brick
manufacturers had already spent millions of dollars in irreversible
compliance costs.
Now, let's be clear. Those aren't just costs that are borne by those
businesses. Those get passed along to the American consumers, raising
the price of brick to each and every one of us.
The brick industry faces again the uncertainty of having to spend
millions of dollars to comply with revised Brick MACT while the fate of
the rule makes its way through the court system.
Mr. Speaker, the brick industry employs thousands of Americans at
more than 70 brick plant and supporting facilities nationwide. These
facilities are located in 38 States. Alabama, my home State, is one of
the top five States for brick manufacturing capacity and faces some of
the largest job losses.
Unlike other industries targeted by EPA's overreach, the brick
industry is dominated by small, family-owned businesses that have been
struggling in our current economy.
EPA estimates industry-wide annual compliance in Brick MACT will cost
[[Page H1122]]
$25 million annually. The industry estimates that the costs may be as
much as $100 million per year. For a facility with two kilns, which is
the industry average, costs are estimated to be $4.4 million.
Remember, those costs get passed along to us consumers in the cost of
bricks. These costs will likely cause many of these small facilities to
shut their doors and are, of course, over and above the millions of
dollars already spent by the industry to comply with the earlier rule
that was vacated by the D.C. Circuit.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4557 ensures that the brick industry will not again
have to make millions of dollars in expenditures before Brick MACT
works its way through the courts.
H.R. 4557 would implement a legislative stay to Brick MACT and block
the rule until all related court challenges have been resolved by the
Federal courts.
Opponents of this bill argue that a legislative stay is unnecessary
because the brick industry can request a judicial stay in Federal
court; however, as an attorney, I can tell you that the standard to
receive such a stay is incredibly high and such stays are rarely
granted.
The recent case of Michigan v. EPA provides a great example of why
this legislation is necessary. In that case, the Supreme Court found
the EPA's Utility MACT rule to be legally flawed and remanded the case;
however, by that time, utility companies had already been forced to
spend billions of dollars to comply with Utility MACT. Remember, that
gets passed along to the consumers in our utility bills.
EPA Acting Administrator Janet McCabe stated that, although EPA lost,
the Supreme Court's decision was of limited practical effect because
the majority of power plants were already in compliance or well on
their way to compliance. Thus, the EPA was, in practicality, able to
evade any meaningful judicial review, which makes a mockery of this
process.
The EPA should not get to do the same again to the brick industry
while Brick MACT makes its way through the court system. Thousands of
American jobs should not be put at risk due to a rule which has already
been vacated once. Again, the consumers of America should not be
penalized for the same reason.
I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 635 and the
underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the
underlying bill. The Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing
Kilns Act--certainly, a mouthful to say--is yet another of the endless
list of attempts by this body--and it will not become law--to block
implementation of an administrative rule or regulation that some people
don't like, rather than tackling the issues that this country cares
about and that I hear from voters back home when I have townhall
meetings or I am at the grocery store.
I hear about fixing our broken immigration system and securing our
border. I hear about balancing the budget deficit. I hear about making
sure that Medicare and Social Security are solvent and there for the
next generation. I hear about making sure we create jobs, that housing
is affordable, and that our roads and bridges are safe so traffic can
flow safely and quickly.
Yet, here we are again, spending an entire legislative day debating a
bill that won't become law, which you will certainly hear about over
the next couple of hours, regarding a series of regulations around
brick kilns.
Once again the Republicans are approaching a complex rulemaking
process with a knee-jerk reaction in a nontransparent process with a
closed rule, not even allowing a debate for a single amendment.
Not only is this bill not transparent and not necessary, in this
particular case, it sets a bad precedent because the courts already
have the authority to issue a stay of compliance on a final rule.
As we saw through the recent delay of the Clean Power Plan, our
judicial and legislative systems are separate for a reason.
Let the courts do their work and let us do ours. Let us not preempt
the courts from their normal process. Our judicial and legislative
systems are separate. Individuals, organizations, and companies have
plenty of recourse and options through the court system to address this
matter.
The floor of the House is not the place to be requesting a stay. If
there was something done that was illegal or wrong, the place to
request a stay is the courtroom.
But time and time again legislation like this has come to this floor,
disposing of the judicial process and shortcutting the justice system
that we have to delay a rule until all legal challenges are completed,
which effectively means that frivolous lawsuits can jam up the rule
indefinitely and forever.
Over the past 45 years, it is proven that clean air regulations are
important to protect the public health and consistent with growing a
strong economy.
Of course, I understand the pressure requirements placed on brick and
clay ceramic makers. They have legitimate reasons to provide input to
question or contest the rule.
The judicial avenue is and will be available to them. That is the
appropriate venue to request a stay, not the floor of the House of
Representatives.
There are several brick and clay companies in my State of Colorado,
such as the Summit Brick & Tile Company in Pueblo, Colorado. I know
these companies updated and changed their industry after the 2004 rule.
But, unfortunately, like so many rules under the administration of
George Bush, the rule is written so poorly that it was vacated by the
courts in 2007, which means there is no rule under the authority of the
Clean Air Act, which this Congress has made the law of the land, that
sets standards for eliminating air pollution in this industry. Not only
is that unacceptable, but, of course, it needs to be rectified
urgently.
There is nothing special about brick kilns. Like anything else, of
course, they affect air quality. I have a picture of what we are
talking about here.
Of course, like any other economic activity that creates issues
regarding air quality, we need a nuanced and thoughtful rule that
ensures that the economic activity continues, subject to maintaining
the public health.
In fact, the EPA has a responsibility under section 112 of the Clean
Air Act to control pollution from stationary sources of pollution, like
brick kilns.
Let me repeat that. The EPA was actually required by Congress to
implement a rule that covers this industry because, according to the
judiciary, President Bush enacted the rule incorrectly.
If Congress wants to get at the underlying statutes, let's have that
debate. Let's talk about what the EPA should and shouldn't do.
I believe that we should close down loopholes that exempt fracking
from regulation under the Clean Air Act. We have a series of bills that
would do that--the BREATHE Act and the FRESHER Act--to ensure that the
small site exemption does not occur, does not exist with regard to
fracking activities that, in the aggregate, can have a considerable
impact on air quality.
We have seen areas of our State and our neighboring State of Wyoming
have worse air quality than downtown Los Angeles because of the
extraction and fracking-related activity, which is largely exempt from
the clean air law.
That is the debate I would be happy to have. Let's debate the
appropriate jurisdiction of the EPA. If there is something we got wrong
in that with regard to brick kilns and their authority or
responsibility, that is the place to have the debate.
{time} 0930
It is not to give an indefinite stay to simply implement what is the
law of the land and the will of Congress, which is the EPA's
responsibility.
Congress has told the EPA, through the Clean Air Act, that they have
the responsibility under section 112 to control pollution from
stationary sources of pollution. They tried to do it under President
Bush. It was tossed out by the courts because it was improperly
constructed, and they are doing their job.
Yet, Congress is trying to use something that is normally a judicial
procedure, a stay, to get around the very
[[Page H1123]]
mandate that Congress gave the Environmental Protection Agency. So it
is simply the wrong way to go about it.
Brick and clay plants, if left unregulated, which is why they are
covered under the Clean Air Act, can be major sources of toxic air
pollutants, like hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride, and hazardous
metal, heavy metal pollutants that can endanger people with everything
from asthma to cancer.
Now, I don't know about you, but I would rather have my children
running around a playground of a town where plants that put out
hazardous pollutants are regulated in a thoughtful and responsible way,
which is what this rule attempts to do.
That is why opponents of this legislation include the Center for
Biological Diversity, League of Conservation Voters, League of Women
Voters, National Resource Development Council, the Sierra Club, and the
Union of Concerned Scientists.
All of these experts understand that, for 15 years, Congress has
expected air pollution from these facilities to be covered by the Clean
Air Act standards, and that delaying the process further is
irresponsible, prevents the EPA from doing their mandate that Congress
has given them, sets a dangerous public health precedent, and will
endanger lives of American citizens.
Not only is this a treacherous pattern but, again, it is a waste of
time. This bill won't become law. It came out of committee on a party-
line vote. The majority knows that, even in the off chance that the
Senate were to consider this legislation, which I highly doubt, the
President would veto the bill.
It was indicated in the Statement of Administration Policy that I
will include in the Record, Mr. Speaker, which reads, in part, H.R.
4557 would create ``an incentive for parties to litigate this
rulemaking and the related corrections notice for as long as possible
in order to delay air pollution reductions.''
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 4557--Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns Act of
2016--Rep. Bill Johnson, R-OH, and seven cosponsors
The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 4557, which could
extend indefinitely deadlines for the brick and structural
clay industry to limit mercury and other hazardous air
pollution. Specifically, H.R. 4557 would extend compliance
deadlines for the Brick and Structural Clay National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants until all litigation
on the final rule is complete, thereby creating an incentive
for parties to litigate the rulemaking and the related
corrections notice for as long as possible in order to delay
air pollution reductions. In the meantime, H.R. 4557 would
undermine the public health protections of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) by allowing further emissions of approximately 30 tons
per month of toxic air pollution from brick and clay products
production facilities. These toxic emissions include mercury,
gases, and other hazardous metals which are associated with a
variety of acute and chronic health effects, including
cancers.
The CAA required the Environmental Protection Agency to
finalize pollution standards for toxic air pollution from all
industrial sectors by 2000. Since then, sources in many other
sectors have been complying with standards that limit their
emissions of cancer-causing toxic air pollutants. The subject
rule reflects CAA requirements while providing flexible
compliance options and the maximum time allowed by law for
compliance. It also makes distinctions between requirements
for small and large kilns in order to reduce the impacts on
small businesses.
Since its enactment in 1970, and subsequent amendment in
1977 and 1990--each time with strong bipartisan support--the
CAA has improved the Nation's air quality and protected
public health. Over that same period of time, the economy has
grown over 200 percent while emissions of key pollutants have
decreased nearly 70 percent. Forty-five years of clean air
regulation have shown that a strong economy and strong
environmental and public health protection go hand-in-hand.
Because H.R. 4557 threatens the health of Americans by
allowing more toxic air pollution, if the President were
presented with H.R. 4557, his senior advisors would recommend
that he veto the bill.
Mr. POLIS. Again, so long as even there are the most frivolous
lawsuits and anybody could continually file a lawsuit, and so long as
any one of them is pending, the rule does not take effect. It is
indefinitely stayed.
So, yet again, we are debating something on the floor going nowhere.
We are not debating improving our roads and bridges. We are not
debating securing our southern border. We are not debating balancing
our Federal budget deficit. We are not debating making America more
competitive and bringing jobs from overseas and China back home here
and creating a growing middle class. Instead, we are wasting time on
legislation that won't become law, that shouldn't even become law
because it is the inappropriate role of this body.
There are so many things that we could be talking about even within
the energy realm and the EPA realm that would be productive
discussions. I will give you an example.
I have had the opportunity in hearings in the Natural Resources
Committee to bring up a bipartisan bill that I have with Mr. Gosar
twice this week, and this is the third time. It is a bill that would
create jobs and create renewable energy. It is called the Public Lands
Renewable Energy Development Act.
Why don't we have a rule on that bill or bring it up on suspension?
Mr. Gosar and my bill would incentivize renewable energy development
by streamlining the permitting process on public lands for renewable
energy projects.
Isn't that something we can come together about, making sure that we
can find a way to expedite siting for renewable energy products on
public land, creating jobs and creating clean energy?
Or we could be discussing the need for a permanent reauthorization of
the Land and Water Conservation Fund, something that just last week was
offered as a bipartisan amendment by myself and Mr. Grijalva and Mr.
Sanford of South Carolina.
But, of course, that amendment was not given an hour of debate, 2
hours of debate, like this. We have the rule, we have the bill. The
entire legislative day is discussing a stay on brick kilns. It should
be in a courtroom, not in the U.S. House.
We weren't even given 10 minutes. We weren't even given 1 minute to
discuss that bipartisan amendment from Mr. Grijalva and Mr. Sanford and
myself.
Look, the list goes on and on of what we could be doing. It has been
said that politics is the art of the possible.
When the American people look at our proceedings on the floor and
what the Republican majority is doing with Congress, is it any wonder
that the approval rating of Congress is 8 percent?
The people look at Congress and say, look, you are spending an entire
day debating a stay on kiln rules. First of all, why are you talking
about it? It should be in a courtroom.
Second of all, aren't there critical national priorities that you
need to be debating right now to create jobs, make America more
competitive overseas, improve our schools, make college more
affordable, balance our deficit, fix our broken immigration system,
improve our roads and bridges, make America more competitive and grow
the middle class? Aren't there?
That is what 92 percent of the American people are crying out. There
is still time for this Congress to listen. I hope that we begin.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for
his important work on this issue, and also the gentleman from Ohio.
I rise today in support of H.R. 4557, the BRICK Act. This legislation
delays an unnecessary EPA rule that imposes overly strict emission
standards on American brick kilns.
Manufacturers shouldn't have to deal with the hassles of an
overzealous regulator in the first place, but they should at least get
to have their day in court fighting this unreasonable regulation before
incurring millions of dollars of expense to comply.
Since 2003, brick manufacturers have reduced emissions from kilns by
95 percent. However, EPA decided to impose another Washington mandate
on small businesses, which they may not even be able to meet.
Shuttering U.S. brick factories will lead to higher costs for
American consumers, making it even more expensive to open a business or
raise a family.
Additionally, manufacturers will shed good-paying jobs in places like
Malvern, Arkansas. And, once again,
[[Page H1124]]
our manufacturing needs will move offshore to a place that pollutes
much worse than we do here.
Not only is the EPA out of touch with reality on this issue, they
exhibit no common sense when they regulate jobs away from America and
send them to countries that pay sub-par wages and have sub-par
pollution control technology. They have a lose-lose proposition.
Mr. Speaker, this is the same EPA that negligently released millions
of gallons of toxic mine water into the Animas River, tried to cover up
and minimize their actions, refused to take responsibility, and
resisted being held accountable.
If anyone needs more regulation, it is this out-of-control Federal
agency, not hard-working Americans.
Mr. Speaker, for the sake of our environment and economy, I urge the
House to pass the BRICK Act to keep the air cleaner and to save good-
paying jobs here at home.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to talk a little bit more about when we say this bill will
never become law what exactly we mean and I mean when I indicate that.
There have been an enormous number of bills that have passed the
House of Representatives. As an example, repealing the Affordable Care
Act, ObamaCare, taking health care away from tens of millions of
Americans--that has passed this House in one form or another 64 times.
So 64 times the House of Representatives has voted to repeal the
Affordable Care Act. That is clearly what people who have been elected
to the House have decided to do.
The House of Representatives alone, however, doesn't get to make the
law. We have the United States Senate and we have a President. The
United States Senate usually requires, as a procedural matter, 60 votes
to move legislation forward. And of course, even after a bill in the
same form passes the House and the Senate, for it to become law, the
President needs to sign it. If the President vetoes it, it immediately
comes back and will require two-thirds to override the veto.
So what we are talking about with this bill around kilns, like this
one here, we are talking about a bill that probably will pass the
House. I expect that that is what we are spending a whole day on. I
don't think the Republicans would want to spend a whole day on it if it
was going to fail. So let's assume it passes.
I have heard no indication whatsoever that the Senate is going to
take this up in any way, shape, or form. In the unlikely event that the
Senate takes it up, they have the challenge of getting 60 votes.
The bill had no bipartisan support in committee. It is hard to see
how they would get enough Democratic support in the Senate to get the
60 votes to pass the bill. Even if they somehow did, President Obama
and the administration is, of course, against providing a stay against
their own rule that they promulgated. Therefore, we are spending an
entire day doing nothing, talking about brick kilns, fiddling while
Rome burns.
The American people are upset, Mr. Speaker. The American people want
this Congress to tackle the issues that affect them and their family
around their kitchen table: rising rents and mortgage prices; maybe the
mom or the dad or the kids lost their job and need to get back to work;
making sure that they have a way to commute to work every day, and that
our roads and bridges are strong, and they spend a minimal amount of
time in traffic so they can spend more time with their family or at
work earning money; balancing our budget deficit to secure a strong
financial future for our country; making sure that Medicare and Social
Security are there and safe, not only for today's retirees, but for the
next generation and the next generation of American retirees; securing
our southern border and replacing our broken and nonsensical and costly
immigration system with one that works for America to make us more
competitive, generate more revenues, unites families, and reflects our
values as a Nation of immigrants.
We could be doing any of those things. We could be debating any of
those things. No one says they are easy. It starts with time to debate
here on the floor of the House. What a great way to spend a day, a
Thursday.
By the way, Speaker Ryan and the Republicans don't even have us
working Friday, tomorrow. They are sending us all home on Thursday,
after spending a day debating brick kilns. We are not even debating
anything tomorrow, Friday, or Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday or
Thursday or Friday of next week.
I mean, look, the American people would love this kind of job which
the Republican majority has given themselves with the congressional
calendar where we have worked 3\1/2\ days this week, get Friday off,
all of next week off, and spend a whole day debating brick kilns,
rather than the issues that the American people care about.
That is what is going on here. That is why Congress has such a low
approval rating.
Well, look, let's begin by debating the issues that people care
about. They are hard. I get that. Fixing our broken immigration system,
balancing our budget deficit, securing Medicare and Social Security,
are not easy issues.
But why don't we spend a day doing that, today, all day, having ideas
from both sides of the aisle, having Members speak about their plans to
make America better and stronger, rather than debating a court
procedure, a stay on brick kilns, all day, and then rewarding ourselves
with a day off tomorrow.
Job well done, Congress. We did a court procedure on brick kilns as
our work product and, for that, we deserve a week and a half off.
That is the job that Congress has defined for itself, and it is why
the American people are so outraged.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule that would require the Republicans to stop their
partisan games and hold hearings on the budget proposal, the
President's budget.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we pass this previous question motion that
I am making, we can actually begin the important discussion of how we
can bring our budget into balance and restore fiscal responsibility.
Let's have hearings on the President's budget proposal. Let's talk
about the tradeoffs around investments and savings. Let's have those
meaningful discussions, rather than to spend an entire day on brick
kilns, and then giving ourselves a week and a half off.
We can still salvage this Congress for the American people. We can
restore trust in the integrity and the desire of the American
Government to do good and tackle the big issues we face. I am confident
we can.
That can begin by passing my previous question motion and getting to
debate about the budget and balancing our budget and the tradeoffs and
investments in our future, rather than debating kilns and giving
ourselves a week and a half off.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 0945
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I was very interested to hear my colleague talk about what makes the
American people frustrated and angry right now. I have just come
through a primary campaign for my seat in Alabama. I spent a lot of
time with the citizens of the United States in my district. They are
indeed frustrated and angry, and let me tell you why. They are
frustrated and angry because we have a government in the Federal sphere
that is out of control, and it is taking away their jobs.
This regulation will take away jobs from people in Alabama. It will
take away jobs from people in 38 States. That is what makes them angry:
a Federal Government that cares so little about them that they would
put out a regulation like this that kills jobs, that raises the price
of bricks on those of us who buy them to build our homes, and the
Federal Government thinks that is necessary. But we have to do this
today because we have a Federal Government that doesn't understand that
its role is not to do that.
[[Page H1125]]
So let's get back to what this really means. This is not a partisan
issue. Two of the sponsors of this bill are from the other party. My
colleague from Alabama (Ms. Sewell) is a sponsor of this bill and the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) is a sponsor of this bill because
they understand it is going to hurt their constituents. It is going to
hurt the average working person in this country.
My colleagues on the other side don't get that, and because they
don't get that, there is no job too small for them, in their minds, to
kill. There is no business too small for them to put out of business.
There is no amount of money that they are going to increase what we
consumers have to pay that is too much for them. They would kill every
job, and they would hold back every consumer's ability to get a home at
a decent price to get some little, small, almost nothing benefit.
There were no amendments offered as part of this debate today because
none were offered in committee and none were offered to the Rules
Committee. So this is not a closed debate because we are trying to
close off amendments. There aren't any amendments.
Now, I heard a lot about a judicial stay. I said this in my initial
remarks: saying that there is a ``possibility'' for a judicial stay
says nothing about the practicality of it. I addressed that in my
opening remarks. Let me just tell you, as a practical way, it is almost
impossible to get this stay. Yet, when they got a stay several years
ago, it was so late in the game that the brick industry had to go ahead
and make all the changes, which cost jobs and increased the price of
bricks for the rest of us.
Here is the truth. My colleague said that there is an obligation to
have a rule here. There is already a rule on particulate matter, and
most of the benefits in the rule that has been proposed here are to
particulate matter. It is already regulated.
And, oh, by the way, when that prior regulation that was turned back
by the Supreme Court was put out there and the industry had to go ahead
and comply with it, they had already reduced emissions by over 90
percent.
So what we are talking about in this regulation is another effort to
get at some small, little, almost imperceivable benefit at the cost of
hundreds, if not thousands, of American jobs. I am astonished that this
administration is so insensitive to that. The people of America are
angry and frustrated because of that.
Now, I know that we are going to be having debates about some of the
issues that my colleague talked about, and I am looking forward to
those debates. But to the people who work in the industry, this is an
important issue. It may not be important to other people in this House,
but it is important to people that work for these brick businesses. It
is important to me as a consumer looking at what it is going to cost me
for buying new bricks.
So I would hope that there would be greater sensitivity from this
administration for my colleagues in this House to people who are being
hurt by this rule, and I hope that we will all take this very seriously
as the important issue that it is.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to, first of all, congratulate the gentleman from
Alabama. He had a recent election and triumphed, and, of course, we
will be excited to continue to serve with him.
When we run, it is difficult. We have our ear to the ground, and we
hear people. The gentleman mentioned that people were angry back home.
I think there are a lot of people in my district that are angry, too.
But again, I want to ask the gentleman: Is what they were angry about
this brick kiln rule, or were they angry about the failure of Congress
to secure our borders and the failure of Congress to balance our
budget, all those things? I want to ask whether what you heard about in
that anger was about brick kilns, or was it about other issues.
I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, they are angry about a Federal Government
that is overreaching and hurting them. That is what they are angry
about.
Mr. POLIS. Did anybody who was angry bring up brick kilns as
something they were angry about?
I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, they brought up the EPA over and over again.
I hear about the EPA everywhere I go.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as I indicated, it would
be an appropriate discussion for us to talk about the statutory
obligations of EPA. We might have differing opinions. I think they
should have the authority, we should remove the small site exemption,
and they should look at emissions from the fracking industry and the
extraction. But that is a valid discussion to have.
Instead of that, we are saying you are doing what we told you to do,
but we want to grant a stay. So Congress, under the EPA in section 112,
directed the EPA under the Clean Air Act to promulgate these
regulations. President George Bush did so. They were tossed out, and
now there is a new set of regulations going forward to implement what
Congress wanted the EPA to do.
Now, if the gentleman from Alabama doesn't want the EPA to do that,
let's have that discussion about EPA's authority. I am happy to do it.
I have ideas. Maybe there are some areas the EPA shouldn't have that
mandate authority. There are other areas, like making sure we look at
emissions from fracking where we need enhanced authority because there
is something called the small site exemption in the Clean Air Act,
where, even though each particular fracking pad has a very small
contribution to air quality, when you start having thousands of them in
a limited area--which we do--it starts looking a lot less like a couple
automobiles and a lot more like a large industrial factory. So they
shouldn't be exempt just by nature of being small, because when you
have a lot of small things, it equals not only one big thing, it equals
10 big things and 100 big things.
We have over 40,000 active wells in the greater Weld-Larimer County
area alone, and there is an enormous impact on our air quality, which
is exempt under the small site exemption.
So again, section 112 directs the EPA to promulgate these rules. If
we want to open up the mandate that Congress has given the EPA, let's
have that discussion.
As an individual legislator, I might trade you this brick kiln
authority if we can close the small site exemption. I would say, fine;
my constituents care more about closing that small site exemption than
they do if there are two brick kilns in our entire State. So I think,
in general, my constituents and Coloradans care more about making sure
our air quality is good and protected with regard to the emissions from
the fracking activity than from the two brick kilns. So I would be open
to that as a legislative compromise. That is how legislation is made.
But we are not allowed to have that debate.
The gentleman mentioned, oh, no amendments were brought forward.
Guess what? We did a motion in the Rules Committee--I am sure the
gentleman from Alabama remembers--yesterday to do an open rule on this.
If that had passed--and it failed on a partisan vote. Not a single
Republican voted to allow an open rule on this bill. If that had
succeeded, if that had passed, that open rule the Democrats wanted, we
could then introduce amendments like the ones that I mentioned to talk
about the authority of the EPA or other issues that we have to improve
the statutory requirements in charge of the EPA. Right on the floor, we
would have the opportunity to do that. Instead, we have an entire day
on brick kilns without even being allowed to introduce amendments that
affect our clean air and water in any way, shape, or form. I think we
can do better.
The gentleman also asked what the impact of the brick kilns on this
is. The EPA estimates that the brick and clay rule would reduce
national air toxins by approximately 375 tons in 2018. Again, that is
what Congress has told the EPA to do under the Clean Air Act.
If Congress wants the EPA to do something different, let's have that
discussion, section 112, other sections of the Clean Air Act, of the
mandate that Congress has given the EPA. Let's not use a court
procedure, a stay, that
[[Page H1126]]
won't become law to short-circuit something that Congress has told the
EPA to do. It is positively schizophrenic for Congress to require an
agency to do something and then say we are not going to allow you to do
what we told you to do.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, if I heard the gentleman correctly, he wants
an open rule. Let me restate: we had no amendments offered at the
committee of jurisdiction and no amendments offered before the Rules
Committee, so that would fly in the face of our desire here to have
regular order. What he has proposed is not regular order. He is
proposing chaos, and I don't think the American people want us to be in
chaos around here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from the great State
of Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), a great conservative leader.
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time to speak
on the rule.
Our process for a bill to get to the floor is it has to go through
the Rules Committee. This was a very, very important bill. It was
interesting in the debate, listening to the sides, because there is an
argument by constituents of having clean bills: one bill, one issue,
simply understood, vote on it, instead of this horse trading that
sometimes gets proposed: you give me this for my giving you that. I can
tell you one thing, I know in my district they really don't like this.
They want us to be accountable for a bill.
I also get frustrated with how easy it is to throw away jobs: I only
have blank kilns in my State. Those are good-paying jobs for families,
and they are important to the fabric of those communities. Just to say,
``Look, I have only got two. I don't really worry about them. Let's
trade them off'' is really troublesome, and I am sorry we fall into
that type of debate.
This is really part of a bigger debate in that the courts have
already done this with the Clean Power Plan, the climate change bill.
The debate is, ``Okay. EPA, you can do the regulation. Do the
regulation.'' What the EPA likes to do is do the regulation; and they
play this game: ``We know it is not legal, so we will impose the
regulation. We know it is not legal. We are going to force industry to
comply,'' and then when the courts say it is not legal, they have
already gone too far, and the jobs have been lost.
That is factual. That is what happened in 2003. That is what happened
when the EPA promulgated the MACT rules in 2003. The rules were vacated
by the Federal court in 2007--vacated--which means you can't do it. But
the industry already was forced to do it, either to spend millions and
millions of dollars, or they had to close.
So fast-forward. Where are we today?
The courts have done this on the Clean Power Plan, the big climate
change rule. What the Court just said for the first time, the Supreme
Court said: No, we are not going to force the States to implement the
Clean Power Plan until it is litigated in the courts. They put a stay
on everyone and said: Don't do anything. Let's have the legislative-
judicial debate and fight.
That is what this bill does. Let's just have the litigation on the
legality of this new rule. If it comes up that it is legal, then the
industry is going to have to comply. But if it comes out that it is not
legal, guess what. We are going to save jobs. We are going to save
communities, and we are going to save the family income for two kilns
in a State or maybe more, depending upon the brick-producing capability
of individual States.
So I am down here just to thank the Rules Committee for bringing this
bill to the floor.
I look forward to the debate. It is much more than brick kilns. It is
about when can the EPA force a company to do something. We would hope
they could only do it after it has been ruled legal by the courts if
someone challenges a rule, and that is what this does.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
{time} 1000
There is a way that our process works around here. If a rule is
illegal, it will be tossed out by the courts. George Bush's attempt to
implement the Clean Air Act, section 112, around brick kilns was tossed
out.
What this bill does is says that, so long as there is a court
challenge, there is some sort of presumption that the rule be tossed
out and, therefore, an indefinite stay.
Now, there can be challenges all the time. The minute one fails,
another one can be launched. No bones about it. This would indefinitely
prevent this rule from ever taking effect with regard to brick kilns.
I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I haven't heard from a single constituent
on this issue. Like the gentleman from Alabama, my constituents are
angry. They are angry at Congress and worried about the direction of
the country.
They want Congress to replace our broken immigration system with one
that works and secure our southern border. They want Congress to return
to fiscal responsibility and balance our budget. They want to make sure
that college is affordable for the next generation. They want to make
sure they have good jobs here at home.
They want to make sure that we encourage companies to locate and grow
here in America rather than take tax advantages for relocating overseas
or inverting their headquarters to occur overseas, as occurs with
today's Tax Code. Those are some of the many issues that my
constituents want me to talk about here.
I just had a townhall meeting last week in Fort Collins, Colorado,
the biggest city in my district. About 100 people came. Not a single
person was angry about brick kilns.
But, yes, there was a lot of anger there about some of the issues I
indicated: people frustrated with why Congress refuses to act on making
college more affordable, why Congress has refused to act in making sure
that Medicare and Social Security are there for the next generation,
and why Congress doesn't put our country on the course of fiscal
responsibility and reduce our debt-to-GDP ratio.
But, instead, we are debating a bill that won't become law without
allowing amendments here on the floor. That is what a closed rule
means. If it was an open rule, I would be able to offer my amendment to
close the small site exemption with regard to fracking, but I can't.
We are debating a bill that won't become law, attacking a rule that
is merely implementing what Congress has told not just this President,
but any President, to do. George Bush tried. Obama tried.
It is because Congress, under the Clean Air Act, tells the executive:
You have to do this under section 112. And then, when they do it, there
is the issue that went through the courts.
That is appropriate. That is their role. But when they implement what
Congress has told them to do, we are saying: No. There is an indefinite
stay.
That is what this bill would do.
I know, Mr. Speaker, regardless of what they think about any of the
policies or rules put out by this administration or any administration,
it is not the place of Congress to issue stays on rules. It is the role
of the courts.
The Constitution established three branches in our government for a
reason under our Constitution. It is the courts' job, not Congress'
job, to interfere with the legal process.
It is not Congress' job to take that responsibility away from the
judicial branch, especially with a bill that would actually encourage
more frivolous litigation by rewarding frivolous litigation and endless
appeals when we already have too much of that in our court system.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the
previous question, which, if we succeed on that vote, we can
immediately get to hold hearings on the President's budget proposals.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule as well, again, a
closed rule, not allowing amendments here on the floor of the House.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The American people are sick and tired of a Federal Government that
is out of control. I can't imagine the Founders of this country in that
constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787 saying: Now, let's
think about a
[[Page H1127]]
government agency established under our Constitution that is going to
regulate bricks.
No wonder the American people look at the Federal Government and say:
Have you lost your mind? What are you doing?
These other issues that my colleague talked about are important. But
we have to stop here in this Congress to deal with another out-of-
control Federal agency--and the EPA is one of the most out-of-control
Federal agencies--to protect the American people and, yes, to protect
their jobs, to protect the consumers of America from unreasonable
increases in the cost of things like bricks because another agency has
done something to them.
Yes, I think the American people are sick and tired of that, and I do
think it is the role of this Congress to do something about it.
The EPA would have no power except for the fact that this Congress
has delegated its own legislative power to the EPA. Indeed, it is our
role to not only provide oversight to that power but, on particular
occasions, to take it back.
Frankly, in my judgment, we don't take it back enough. If we took it
back more, we would be protecting the American people more and their
jobs and the cost of things that they buy every day.
I understood what my colleague just said. I heard it. But once again
I don't think he is thinking about those people who work for these
brick companies and I don't think he is thinking about the consumers of
America, who are ready for the Congress to do its job to protect them.
This is one way that we can do that.
Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 635 and
the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 635 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec 4. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 624)
Directing the Committee on the Budget to hold a public
hearing on the President's fiscal year 2017 budget request
with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget as a
witness. The resolution shall be considered as read. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening
motion or demand for division of the question except one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.
Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of House Resolution 624.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution. . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ribble). The question is on ordering the
previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered, and
suspending the rules and passing S. 1826, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233,
nays 174, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 106]
YEAS--233
Abraham
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
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
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
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
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
NAYS--174
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
[[Page H1128]]
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
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
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--26
Allen
Bass
Beatty
Cardenas
Costa
Engel
Franks (AZ)
Graves (LA)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Harris
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
McCaul
Meeks
Moore
Mulvaney
Napolitano
Pascrell
Pitts
Roybal-Allard
Sanchez, Loretta
Smith (WA)
Wagner
Westmoreland
Zinke
{time} 1026
Mrs. DINGELL, Messrs. WELCH and COOPER changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 106, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
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 235,
noes 173, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 107]
AYES--235
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
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
Cooper
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
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
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Pittenger
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
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
NOES--173
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
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
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
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--25
Beatty
Bishop (UT)
Black
Cardenas
Costa
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hinojosa
Love
McCaul
McDermott
Moore
Mulvaney
Napolitano
Pascrell
Perry
Pitts
Roybal-Allard
Sanchez, Loretta
Smith (WA)
Wagner
Westmoreland
Zinke
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1033
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.
Stated for:
Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 107, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 107, I was detained and
missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
____________________