[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 83 (Wednesday, May 25, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H3220-H3260]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2017
General Leave
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R.
5055, and that I may include tabular material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Idaho?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 743 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 5055.
Will the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren) kindly take the
chair.
{time} 1849
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5055) making appropriations for energy and water
development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2017, and for other purposes, with Mr. Hultgren (Acting Chair) in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
an amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) had
been disposed of, and the bill had been read through page 80, line 12.
Vacating Demand for Recorded Vote on Amendment Offered by Mr. Welch
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent that the request for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont
(Mr. Welch) be withdrawn to the end that the Chair put the question de
novo.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Pittenger
Mr. PITTENGER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to revoke funding previously awarded to or within the
State of North Carolina.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. PITTENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in full support of this
very critical amendment. The objective of this amendment is to prohibit
the President of the United States from restricting funds to go to
North Carolina.
The President's emissaries have stated through the Department of
Transportation, Department of Education, Department of Justice,
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and, yes, through Valerie
Jarrett and through his press secretary, Josh Earnest, that funds
should not be dispensed to North Carolina until North Carolina is
coerced into complying with the legal beliefs of the President and his
political views.
We believe that this is an egregious abuse of executive power and
that the State of North Carolina should not be required to comply with
the President's wishes. The President is not a monarch; he is not a
dictator; he doesn't issue fiats. We are a constitutional divided
government.
This amendment I am offering today stops the President from bullying
States, stops the President from bullying North Carolina. What he seeks
to do in North Carolina, he has sought to do around the country. He has
sent letters to the Departments of Education in every State giving them
guidelines. Already 11 States in the country have sued the Federal
Government over the abuse of these egregious powers.
This is not a fight about a city ordinance with wording that was
poorly edited or about a legislature. This is about a constitutional
divided government. To that end, I would submit to our colleagues in
the House of Representatives that it is critical that we address this
and we rein in this President, who has time and again used his
authority and abused his power; that we must submit to the President
and to the will of the people that we are a country of the people, by
the people, and for the people, and this is a constitutionally divided
government.
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Walker).
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of this amendment.
[[Page H3221]]
President Obama and his administration are threatening to remove
Federal funding to North Carolina's educators, law enforcement, and
critical infrastructure as punishment for its passage of the Public
Facilities Privacy & Security Act. This is despite the fact that this
administration's lawsuit against North Carolina is still pending and
unresolved. Simply put, our courts have not yet found North Carolina in
violation of the law.
To punish or to threaten to punish North Carolina before our courts
have properly ruled on the case violates our Constitution. It is for
our courts, not President Obama, to adjudicate whether someone has
violated the law.
Further, our Nation was founded on the strength of diverse values.
During this time of heated rhetoric, we must focus on maintaining a
civil society where the government does not punish people for what they
believe, but allows an open discourse to all where all are free to
follow their beliefs.
This is why this amendment is necessary--to protect North Carolinians
from President Obama's executive overreach and maintain our
constitutional system.
Mr. PITTENGER. Mr. Chairman, I submit to my colleagues in the House
of Representatives that now is the time that we must stand. We cannot
allow the President of the United States to continue to bully. We must
wait on the adjudication by this court action with the Department of
Justice. We must wait and allow the people to decide and make these
determinations through its constitutionally divided government.
I thank my colleagues, and I thank Mr. Simpson for his leadership on
this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman will state her parliamentary
inquiry.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to assure the Members that the
following amendment is the one that we are debating: ``None of the
funds made available by this act may be used to revoke funding
previously awarded to or within the State of North Carolina.''
Is this the amendment that the gentleman is offering?
The Acting CHAIR. Amendment No. 34, as printed in the Congressional
Record, is pending.
Ms. KAPTUR. Okay. I thank the Chair so very much. In such case, I
claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment which ties the hands of several departments--certainly the
Department of Energy, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of
Reclamation, all of our independent agencies that are contained in the
bill, like Denali and Northern Border--from making responsible
financial decisions and basic oversight of Federal dollars going into
North Carolina.
I find it interesting that my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle support this amendment, as they normally are such strong
supporters of fiscal responsibility and government accountability and
fiscal oversight. Prohibiting the Federal Government from being able to
withhold or revoke funding in a particular State would abandon that
principle.
How do we know that contractors are meeting their obligations? How do
we know that criminal activity is not occurring inside the State of
North Carolina related to Federal expenditures in that State?
If this amendment were accepted, the Department of Energy, the Army
Corps of Engineers--these are huge contracting departments--would be
prohibited from conducting investigations of performance issues related
to contracts or financial assistance awards. The departments could not
terminate financial assistance agreements for material noncompliance.
I don't think that the gentleman wishes to promote irresponsibility,
but I think that is what his amendment actually does. If an award
winner wanted to terminate their relationship with one of the
departments or agencies under our bill for whatever reason, the Federal
Government could not accept that termination. This throws a wrench into
every Federal project inside of your State. I don't think the gentleman
really wants to do that.
If an organization which receives funding, for example, from the
Department of Energy commits fraud, the Department of Energy has no
recourse. They can't report on the performance of the organization
because it could prevent them from winning future awards.
I can think of no greater irresponsible or unjust system than
building on restrictions that deny the American people a proper
functioning oversight by the Federal Government, including the
literally billions of dollars that go into the State of North Carolina.
Those don't only come from our committee or our subcommittee, but they
are significant.
I must oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PITTENGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
{time} 1800
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I actually support this amendment, and I don't think it was as
drastic as was just characterized by the ranking member. The fact is
you can still have oversight; you can still do what is necessary to
make sure that contractors at various sites are doing their job; it
doesn't mean that you just have to pay them no matter what.
The reality is that this administration, as we all know, is using its
pen and phone to execute executive orders, and they are punishing the
State of North Carolina because they don't like something that North
Carolina did. It is in a court. And the Federal Government should not
have the ability to come in and prejudge the outcome of that
determination by the court by withholding funds from the State of North
Carolina simply because it doesn't like what North Carolina did.
So this is a good amendment, and I compliment the gentleman for
bringing it forward.
We have got numerous provisions in this bill to stop the
administration and their efforts to impose policies without regard to
current law or the support of the Congress. I compliment the gentleman.
Mr. PITTENGER. Mr. Chairman, I submit this is a good amendment. I do
believe that what we do with this amendment is prevent the egregious
abuse of power by our President and allow the adjudication of this
process to be completed by the Justice Department.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Loudermilk). The gentleman will avoid
inappropriate references to the President.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining,
please?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 2 minutes remaining.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I hate to disagree with the chairman of our
subcommittee. But let me just say that the amendment actually reads:
``None of the funds made available by this act may be used to revoke
funding previously awarded.''
``None of the funds.'' That means there can be no oversight. If
criminal activity is occurring, none of the funds may be used to revoke
funding previously awarded.
What kind of an amendment is this? This is a very irresponsible
amendment, and it shouldn't be on this bill. If the gentleman has got
some problem down there he wants to solve, we will be happy to work
with him on that on. But I think to tie the hands of our government in
making sure that every taxpayer dollar is properly managed and has
oversight is really wrongheaded.
Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Pittenger
amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
[[Page H3222]]
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Bureau of Reclamation to issue a permit for
California WaterFix or, with respect to California WaterFix,
to provide for compliance under section 102 of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332) or section
7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
About an hour ago, this House of Representatives kicked off a new
quarter in the ongoing California water war. This House passed a piece
of legislation that will ultimately gut the Endangered Species Act; the
Clean Water Act; the biological opinions protecting salmon and smelt;
the health of the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Western
Hemisphere, the San Francisco Bay; and salmon up and down the Pacific
Coast.
This amendment is designed to stop the ultimate threat to the
California Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay. The
ultimate threat is the twin tunnels that are being proposed by the
Brown administration, tunnels that are sized at 15,000-cubic-feet-per-
second capacity, tunnels that have the capability to take half or take
all of the water out of the Sacramento River.
Six months of the year, the Sacramento River flows somewhere between
12,000 and 18,000 cubic feet per second. These tunnels, if ever built,
will be capable of literally sucking the Sacramento River dry and
destroying the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Western
Hemisphere.
This amendment is designed to protect the delta by denying the State
of California the opportunity to use the Federal Government to build
such a destructive system. We don't need that system.
There are solutions to the delta problem. There are solutions that
are capable of addressing the water issues of California. They have
been proposed for many, many years. But this particular proposal that
has been on the books for, now, nearly half a decade is the ultimate
vampire ditch that will suck the Sacramento River dry and destroy the
largest estuary on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere. It is not
needed. It is, at a minimum, a $15 billion boondoggle that will not
create 1 gallon of new water. It will only destroy. It will be the
ultimate death.
Some day, what was proved here in the House of Representatives not
more than an hour ago, some day the votes will be there both in the
House of Representatives and in the Senate and a bill will be sent to
the President that will not be able to be vetoed. We will see the death
of the largest estuary, the most important estuary on the West Coast of
the Western Hemisphere from Alaska to Chile. There is no other place
like this.
The solutions are known. They have been proposed. They have been out
there. Build the infrastructure.
I have introduced a bill that would provide the Federal Government to
work with the State government, in proposition 1 at the State level, to
bring into harmony reservoirs, underground aquifers, conservation,
recycling, desalinization, community water supplies.
It is in the legislation. It is available to us today. All of that,
without destroying the delta and also operating it in such a manner
that we let science determine what to do--not legislation, not
legislation here, not the desire of the Governor of California, but,
rather, science.
Where are the fish? Are they going to be harmed? Ramp the pumps down.
If they are not going to be harmed, then turn the pumps on--very
simple. But the solution that passed the House today doesn't do that.
Oh, it gives some bypassing words to the Endangered Species Act, to the
biological opinions. But, in reality, what it does, it says turn the
dam pumps on anyway. Let them rip. Let them destroy the delta.
This bill speaks to the second threat to the delta--not the
legislation that was passed today, but the issue that is before the
California voters in November, the issue that is before the California
Legislature and others today--and that issue is: Should the tunnels be
built?
The tunnels must never be built. They must never be built because
they are the ultimate existential threat to the delta. With their size,
15,000 cubic feet per second, they are perfectly capable of taking all
of the water out of the Sacramento River half of the year. Don't ever
build something that is so destructive.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chairman, I really wish on this floor that there was
a requirement that we had to tell the whole truth and nothing but the
truth.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment that is being offered here, there is a
huge exaggeration that is going on now. There were periods this past
year alone, just in the last few months, that there were 150,000 cubic
feet per second flowing through that delta.
Now, these tunnels, I do not believe are the ultimate solution for
the delta and for the valley, but I do believe that taking more options
off the table and an option that, actually, the Governor of
California--a close friend of the person that offered this amendment--
does support, and making sure that we have an honest debate as we go
forward to solve the problems of the delta, that we have to have all
options on the table.
I have looked for every opportunity to have an honest dialogue across
the aisle. We have had those conversations. Those who were in the room
with us walked away and told the press they never existed or were never
a part of them. Now they are coming back and asking for those same
private conversations again, and we are not going to play that game
anymore. We want to make sure we have an honest dialogue.
In conference, as this bill moves forward and as long as language is
there, we have the opportunity to have that dialogue and keep those
options on the table that the Governor of California actually supports.
Anybody who supports this amendment is actually closing more
opportunities for us to have that open dialogue, so I rise in
opposition to this.
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Calvert), the chairman.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, here we go. This last winter, as the
gentleman pointed out, actually upwards of 200,000 cubic feet per
second were moving through the delta. On days like that, we were
pumping 2,300 cubic feet per second at the pumps.
Now, the Governor believes--and many believe--that the solution,
because they were afraid it was going to reverse flow, the delta, when
200,000 cubic feet are moving through the delta, is to build these
tunnels. And now, if these tunnels are built, we are saying we are
going to suck dry the Sacramento River. Come on. That couldn't happen.
We can't even pump up to the biological opinion.
We are not talking about eviscerating the Endangered Species Act. We
are talking about pumping water up to the biological opinion of 5,000
cubic feet per second. We all know that those pumps are capable of
pumping up to 11,000 cubic feet per second. They couldn't even pump
15,000 cubic feet per second, because they can only go up to 11,000
cubic feet.
Saying that, this is a solution that is on the table. It has been
thought out. It costs a lot of money. I know there are some questions
that have to be answered. But the solution that the gentleman keeps
bringing up is a solution that nobody can agree to.
So we are doing the best we can in the majority to make sure that we
[[Page H3223]]
have water for the people in the Central Valley--and, by the way, for
southern California, where our economy is suffering because of this;
certainly, the Central Valley is suffering because of this--and to come
up with solutions that can work.
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chairman, again, I have to rise in opposition to
this. I think we have to have an open dialogue on water legislation
going forward, and it obviously needs to be transparent and open for
the world to see.
We have tried working quietly with some folks and, obviously, that
didn't produce anything. This is the next best option: having that
option to have an open dialogue with all options on the table. We
already have the option that is being performed today, where my
district is suffering, unemployment is through the roof, and people are
truly suffering, and that needs to be fixed.
We are asking for a simple solution to this. Legislation has been
introduced. It has been part of a couple pieces of legislation now. I
think it is a very reasonable request, and I strongly recommend a
``no'' on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
The amendment was rejected.
{time} 1815
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to prepare, propose, or promulgate any regulation or
guidance that references or relies on the analysis contained
in--
(1) ``Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for
Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866'',
published by the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of
Carbon, United States Government, in February 2010;
(2) ``Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the
Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under
Executive Order 12866'', published by the Interagency Working
Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government, in
May 2013 and revised in November 2013; or
(3) ``Revised Draft Guidance for Federal Departments and
Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the
Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews'', published by the
Council on Environmental Quality on December 24, 2014 (79
Fed. Reg. 77801).
Mr. GOSAR (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Arizona?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a commonsense
amendment that will protect American jobs and our economy by
prohibiting funds from being used to implement the Obama
administration's flawed social cost of carbon valuation.
This job killing and unlawful guidance sneakily attempts to pave the
way for cap-and-trade-like mandates. Congress and the American people
have repeatedly rejected cap-and-trade proposals.
Knowing that he can't lawfully enact a carbon tax plan, President
Obama is attempting to circumvent Congress by playing loose and fast
with the Clean Air Act and unilaterally implementing this unlawful new
requirement under the guise of guidance.
The committee was wise to raise concern about the administration's
abuse of the social cost of carbon valuation in the report. My
amendment explicitly prohibits funds from being used to implement this
deeply flawed guidance in the bill text.
The House voted in favor of similar measures to reject the social
cost of carbon four times last Congress and multiple times over the
past couple of years.
Roger Martella, a self-described, lifelong environmentalist and
career environmental lawyer, testified at the May 2015 House Natural
Resources Committee hearing on the revised guidance and the flaws
associated with the social cost of carbon model, stating that the
social cost of carbon estimates suffer from a number of significant
flaws that should exclude them from the NEPA process.
Among these flaws are:
One: The projected costs of carbon emissions can be manipulated by
changing key parameters, such as timeframes, discount rates, and other
values that have no relation to a given project undergoing review.
Two: OMB and other Federal agencies developed the draft social cost
of carbon estimates without any known peer review or opportunity for
public comment during the developmental process.
Three: OMB's draft social cost of carbon estimates are based
primarily on global rather than domestic costs and benefits.
Four: There is still considerable uncertainty in many of the
assumptions and data elements used to create the draft social cost of
carbon estimates, such as the damage functions and the modeled time
horizons.
Mr. Martella's testimony was spot on. Congress, not Washington
bureaucrats, at the behest of the President should dictate our
country's climate change policy.
The sweeping changes that the White House is utilizing did not go
through the normal regulatory process, and there was no public comment.
Unfortunately, this administration just doesn't get it and continues
to try to circumvent Congress to impose an extremist environmental
agenda that is not based on the best available science.
Worse yet, the model utilized to predict the social cost of carbon
can be easily manipulated to arrive at the desired outcome.
For instance, the administration recently attempted to justify the
EPA's methane rule using the social cost of carbon. Using this flawed
metric, they claim that the EPA's methane rule will yield climate
benefits of $690 million in 2025 and that those benefits will outweigh
the $530 million that the rule will cost businesses and job creators
that year alone.
Clearly, the social cost of carbon is the administration's latest
unconstitutional tool to deceive the American people and to enact job-
killing regulations.
The House voted in favor of similar measures to reject the social
cost of carbon four times last Congress and multiple times over the
last couple of years.
This amendment is supported by the Americans for Limited Government,
Americans for Tax Reform, Arch Coal, the Council for Citizens Against
Government Waste, FreedomWorks, the National Taxpayers Union, the
Taxpayers Protection Alliance, and the Gila County Cattle Growers
Association.
I ask that all Members join me once again in rejecting this flawed
proposal and in protecting job rights here in America.
I commend the chairman and the committee for their efforts on this
legislation and for recognizing that the NEPA process is in desperate
need of reform.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman and Members, this amendment tells the
Department of Energy to ignore the latest climate change science. Even
worse, the amendment denies that carbon pollution is harmful.
According to this amendment, the cost of carbon pollution is zero.
That is science denial at its worst, and, frankly, it is just simply
wrong.
Tell homeowners in Arizona or those who live up in Canada, where the
wildfires have just raged and who have seen their homes ravaged by
drought-stoked wildfires, that there are no costs from climate change.
If you are a gardener, like I am, even the backs of seed packets have
changed, because what used to be a
[[Page H3224]]
Tennessee tomato, now we grow it in Ohio. The climate zones are moving
north. It is getting warmer.
Tell that to the firefighters who have to put everything else on the
line to fight those fires that rage in California and points west or
north.
Tell that to the children and the elderly that will be plagued by
heat stress and vulnerable to increased disease.
Tell that to the people evacuated from the Isle de Jean Charles in
Louisiana who will lose homes as their island vanishes under the rising
sea.
Or how about Houston, Texas, with the flash flooding? That is one of
the most recent.
These people are looking to us to protect America and to protect
them, and they are looking to the Republicans to finally be reasonable.
The truth is that no one will escape the effects of unmitigated
climate change. It will have an impact on all of us, and, frankly, it
is having an impact on all of us.
But this amendment waves a magic wand and decrees that climate change
imposes no costs at all. House Republicans can vote for this amendment.
They can try to block the Department from recognizing the damage caused
by climate change and the potential damage, but they cannot overturn
the laws of nature. They are powerful.
We should be heeding the warnings of the climate scientists, not
denying reality. Thank God we have them. We don't have to operate in
ignorance.
Recently, our Nation's leading climate scientists released the
National Climate Assessment, which continues to show evidence
confirming the ongoing impacts of climate change.
Leading scientists around the world, not just here, agree the
evidence is unambiguous. This amendment tells the Department to ignore
some of the wisest people in the world.
The latest science shows that climate change is expected to
exacerbate heat waves--those have been felt around the country--
droughts--look at Lake Mead in Las Vegas. Look at the rings going down.
Look at millions and millions of acres now enduring wildfires. Look
at the added floods, water- and vector-borne diseases, which will be
greater risks to human health and lives around the world.
The security of our food supply will diminish, resulting in
reductions in production and increases in prices.
According to a leading climate science body, the IPCC, increasing
global temperatures and drastic changes in water availability, which we
have just heard about on this floor, in California, for heaven's sake,
combined with an increase in food demand poses large risks to food
security globally and regionally.
When I was born, there were 146 million people in this country. By
2050, we will have 500 million. It takes more animals, it takes more
machines, it takes more energy, to feed that population, and it takes
much more to feed the global population.
Human beings and our way of life do have an impact on what happens on
this very, very suspended planet in the Milky Way galaxy.
This amendment tells the Department to ignore these and many other
impacts, and, frankly, I view that as irresponsible.
Federal agencies have a responsibility to calculate the costs of
climate change and take them into account. It is plain common sense,
and it is a life-and-death matter.
That is exactly what the Obama administration is doing. An
interagency task force worked over the course of several years to
estimate the costs of the harm from carbon pollution.
The cost calculation was first issued in 2010 and updated in 2014 and
continues to be refined by incorporating new scientific and technical
information and soliciting input from leading experts.
This was a very constructive calculation and a conservative one at
that, with the full costs of climate change almost certainly being
higher. But it is better than the previous estimate and much, much
better than assuming the costs are nothing.
Unfortunately, that is what this amendment would require the
government to assume: zero harm, zero costs, zero danger, from carbon
pollution and climate change.
The truth is that unchecked climate change would have a catastrophic
economic and human impact here and across the world.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, if I could inquire from the Chair how much
time I have.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, the Earth's climate has been changing since
the beginning of time, and that is something on which I think we can
all agree.
MIT researchers have looked at a massive extinction some 252 million
years ago as a result of a massive buildup of carbon dioxide. Funny,
man wasn't around.
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service estimates that the
administration squandered $77 billion, with a B, between fiscal year
2008 and fiscal year 2013 in trying to study all this.
Now, if the President, the emperor himself, would like to bypass
Congress, that is fine. But Congress has a fiduciary duty and a
responsibility legislatively to actually pass something that the agency
should enforce.
We talked about wildfires. Well, there we go again. It has been
mismanagement of our forests that have created these catastrophic
wildfires. Take it from somebody in Arizona who should know.
So I ask all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Garamendi
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have amendment No. 29 at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. (a) For an additional amount for ``Bureau of
Reclamation--Water and Related Resources'' for an additional
amount for WaterSMART programs, as authorized by subtitle F
of title IX of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009
(42 U.S.C. ch. 109B), section 6002 of such Act (16 U.S.C.
1015a), title XVI of the Reclamation Projects Authorization
and Adjustment Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 390h et seq.), and the
Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act (43 U.S.C.
ch. 40), there is hereby appropriated, and the amount
otherwise made available by this Act for ``National Nuclear
Security Administration--Weapons Activities'' is hereby
reduced by, $100,000,000.
(b) None of the funds made available by this Act for
``National Nuclear Security Administration--Weapons
Activities'' in excess of $120,253,000 may be used for the
W80-4 Life Extension Program.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is known as amendment
116.
I think most of us should be aware that we are well into the first
quarter of a new nuclear arms race this time with not only Russia, but
with China. And perhaps there are some others out there that would like
to build nuclear weapons and armaments.
This amendment goes directly to one of the critical parts of that
arms race, which is the development of what is essentially a new
nuclear bomb. Some would like to say it is simply a refurbishment of an
older weapon, and I guess you can get away with that if you stretch the
words a bit.
But this is the W80-4 nuclear bomb. It is the warhead that will go on
the new cruise missile, sometimes called the LSRO. It is a very
expensive proposition.
This particular budget calls for $240 million to be spent this year
on the
[[Page H3225]]
early stages of the refurbishment. We are probably looking at twice
that level of funding over the next decade to develop a few hundred of
these weapons or these bombs.
We need to wake up. We need to be paying attention to this trillion-
dollar enterprise. Over the next 25 years, we will be spending $1
trillion on a new nuclear arms race.
To what effect? Well, some would say that what we have is old and we
ought to have something that is new. Well, what is old actually
continues to work for many, many years.
So it is not just the nuclear bombs that will be refurbished or
rebuilt or life-extended or whatever words you want to use, but they
are new and are extraordinary expensive and, obviously, extraordinarily
dangerous.
{time} 1830
We are going to develop an entire new array of delivery systems.
Discussed on the House floor not so long ago in debate was the question
of whether we ought to have new intercontinental ballistic missiles in
the silos in the upper Midwest. It was an interesting debate. The
result of the debate was, well, we ought to build new ICBMs for those
silos without paying too much attention to the cost, and we ought to
have a whole new array of nuclear-armed submarines, a new Stealth
Bomber, and a new cruise missile.
So what are we talking about here? A trillion dollars. At the same
time, we debate on the floor whether we have any money for Zika.
Apparently, we don't; although that is a real threat, and it is real
today. We talk about our community water systems, and we don't have any
money for those either. I will tell you where the money is. It is in
this nuclear arms race.
It is not about disarmament. Nobody is suggesting that. It is about
are we going to spend all this money and perpetuate what is already
underway without giving thought to the impact it is going to have on
the things that we know we must do--educate our children, provide the
infrastructure for our communities, our water, our sanitation systems,
and our transportation systems--or are we going to go about building
new nuclear bombs.
Apparently, that is what we are going to do because there is $240
million right here, money that we didn't have available for Zika, money
that we don't have for the water systems of Flint, Michigan, or our own
State of California. But it is here.
The W80--keep that number in mind, ladies and gentlemen. You are
going to see that coming back before you as we appropriate more and
more dollars for not only this new nuclear bomb, but for many others.
So I draw your attention to this issue. I ask that we move about $100
million of this money out of this nuclear bomb that we really don't
need for another decade. We don't need it tomorrow. We may never need
it. It won't be on any piece of equipment for at least a decade. So why
don't we spend this money on our communities? Why don't we spend it on
Flint, Michigan? Why don't we spend it on the communities in Central
Valley, California, that we have heard so much about?
There are communities that don't have water systems, communities in
the San Joaquin Valley that we heard so much about just a moment ago
where the children have to take their water out of a horse water
trough, not out of a tap.
No, we are going to spend our money building a new nuclear bomb. I
think that is wrong. I think it is not necessary. In fact, I know it is
not necessary. But that is what we are going to do.
So I ask you to make a choice, to make a choice to spend our money on
what we need today: clean water systems, transportation, and education,
not on a new nuclear bomb.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I respect the gentleman's comments, and I
respect the gentleman.
He mentioned many of the functions that are necessary for the
government that we should be doing. The one he didn't mention was
defending the security of the United States. That is one of the
fundamental purposes of the Federal Government.
What this amendment would do is take money out of the program to
continue the life extension program of the W80 warhead, the only cruise
missile in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The gentleman says we don't need
it now, so let's spend the money somewhere else; and if we need it next
year, I guess we can just spend the money next year.
But you can't develop this, and you don't do these life-extension
programs in just a year. These are long-term investments. The life
extension program will replace the nonnuclear and other components to
support the Air Force's plan to develop the long-range standoff cruise
missile, or the LRSO. If the gentleman believes the LRSO is not
necessary, I would point him at the Air Force, whose leadership has
testified on numerous occasions before Congress that we need to sustain
our nuclear capabilities and we need to make these investments.
We must do the work that is needed to extend the life of this warhead
as long as there is a clear defense requirement for maintaining a
nuclear cruise missile capability. While the LRSO is still at an early
stage of development, these warheads are very complex, and there is a
considerable amount of work to accomplish between now and then.
Performing development work earlier in the schedule will allow the NNSA
to reduce technical risks and limit any cost growth by validating the
military requirements at an early stage.
The gentleman's amendment will not stop the program but would only
add additional risks into the schedule and raise the cost for
modernizing the warhead down the line.
I should point out also that the gentleman's amendment also proposes
to move defense funding to nondefense without any regard to the
firewalls negotiated in previous budget deals.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote against this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, Gosar 221.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the Department of Energy's Climate Model
Development and Validation program.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to save
taxpayer money, help the Department of Energy avoid duplicative
programs, and ensure the agency's limited resources are focused on
programs directly related to its mission to ensure energy security for
the United States.
This simple amendment would prohibit the use of funds for the Climate
Model Development and Validation program within the Department of
Energy. This exact same amendment passed this body in fiscal year 2015
and 2016.
This year, this amendment is even more important because, despite
this amendment getting approval from this body multiple years in a row
and being denied funding from the bipartisan Appropriations Committee
multiple years in a row, the President was given access to about half
of what he requested previously to create this new duplicitous and
wasteful program.
With our Nation more than $19 trillion in debt, the question must be
asked: Why would Congress give millions of dollars to the President for
new computer-generated climate models? The administration is already
manipulating the social cost of carbon models to deceive the American
people and to enact job-killing regulations.
For example, the administration recently attempted to justify the
EPA's methane rule using the social cost of carbon valuation model.
Using this flawed metric, they claimed that the EPA's methane rule will
yield climate benefits of $690 million in 2025 and that those benefits
will outweigh the $530
[[Page H3226]]
million that the rule would cost businesses and job creators that year
alone.
If funded, the Climate Model Development and Validation program will
be yet another addition to the President's ever-growing list of
duplicative global warming, research, and modeling programs currently
being hijacked by the EPA to manufacture alleged climate benefits and
force new regulations like the EPA's Clean Power Plan and WOTUS down
the throats of the American people. The nonpartisan Congressional
Research Service estimates this administration has already squandered
$77 billion from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2013 studying and
trying to develop global climate change regulations.
This amendment is about fiscal responsibility and priorities. While
research and modeling of the Earth's climate--including how and why
Earth's climate is changing--can be of value, it is not central to the
department's mission and is already being done by dozens of government,
academic, business, and nonprofit organizations around the world. With
more than 50 universities and academic institutions around the globe
engaged in climate modeling, this particular issue is being addressed
very well by the academic and nonprofit sector with much greater
efficiency and speed than any government bureaucracy can offer.
Further, the research and models utilized by our universities are not
being manipulated to impose a partisan agenda.
Regardless of your opinion on climate change, I feel strongly that
the House of Representatives must continue its firm position that we
should not be wasting precious taxpayer resources on programs that are
duplicitous in nature and compete with programs funded by private
investment.
The wastefulness of the Climate Model and Validation program has been
recognized by several outside spending and watchdog groups. This
amendment proposal has been supported in the past by the Council for
Citizens Against Government Waste, the American Conservative Union,
Eagle Forum, and the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.
The House of Representatives has wisely declined to fund this program
in fiscal years 2014, 2015, and 2016. Considering the extensive work
being done to research, model, and forecast climate change trends by
other areas in government, the private sector, and internationally,
funding for this specific piece of President Obama's climate agenda is
not only redundant, but inefficient. Considering the Nation's $19
trillion in debt, it is also irresponsible
I thank the chairman, ranking member, and committee for their work.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, years ago, there were people that served in
this body that denied that America should pass a Clean Water Act.
Today, in many places in our country when we turn on the tap, we trust
what we drink. We had to change our way of life. Yes, we had to make
investments, but we produced a stronger country.
There were those who fought against the Clean Air Act. You can go
back and read the Record. There are always those folks who have
difficulty embracing the future.
This amendment blocks funding for the Department of Energy's Climate
Model Development and Validation program. This is climate science
denial at its worst.
It used to be that people said, well, it is okay that industry dumps
in the water. It kind of washes everything out somewhere. Well, when
the bald eagle became an endangered species, it became pretty clear
that all of that pollution was causing long-term damage. Now the
world's top scientists are telling us that we have a rapidly closing
window to reduce our carbon pollution before the catastrophic impacts
of climate change cannot be avoided.
So far, the world has already warmed by 0.9 degrees Celsius, and we
are already seeing the effects of climate change. Most scientists agree
that 2 degrees Celsius is the maximum amount we can warm without really
dangerous tipping points, although many scientists now believe that
even 2 degrees is far too much, given the effects we are already
experiencing all around the world. But absent dramatic action, we are
on track to warm 4 to 6 degrees Celsius by midcentury. That is more
than 10 degrees Fahrenheit.
Even with the pledges to reduce carbon emissions as part of COP 21,
we are still in danger of experiencing the drastic consequences of
climate change, including increased frequency and intensity of extreme
weather events and drought. The International Energy Agency has
concluded that increased efforts are still needed--in addition to
existing pledges--to stay within the 2-degree limit.
We are already seeing the devastation from climate change, including,
recently, the evacuation of climate refugees from the Isle de Jean
Charles near New Orleans. So you sort of think to the world you knew
versus the world of the future, and you have to embrace the future, and
you have to help those who are going to follow us.
There are multiple lines of evidence, including direct measurements,
that life is changing. The projections that these models anticipate are
critical as they provide the guideposts to understanding how quickly
and how steeply the world needs to cut carbon pollution in order to
avoid the worst effects of climate change.
The goal of the Department of Energy's Climate Model Development and
Validation program is to further improve the reliability of climate
models and equip policymakers and citizens with tools to predict the
current and future effects of climate change, such as sea level rise,
extreme weather events, and drought.
This amendment scraps this program. It says ``no'' to enhancing the
reliability of our climate models. Who wouldn't want that? It says
``no'' to investing in the security of the people of this Nation and
the Nation's assets themselves. It says ``no'' to improving our
understanding of how the climate is changing, and it says ``no'' to
informing policymakers about the consequences of unmitigated climate
change. That is absolutely irresponsible and an outcome this Nation
cannot afford.
It is interesting. There is an author, Richard Louv, who has written
a book, ``Last Child in the Woods.'' What it talks about is how America
has become so technologically sophisticated that most people have lost
a real connection to nature, especially our children, who spend 8 hours
in front of a blue screen. But perhaps it is because of that
technological advancement and lack of connection to nature that we do
not have a population--including, perhaps, some who serve in this
Chamber--that observe what nature is actually doing in her powerful
force.
I would urge our colleagues to read that book and to think a little
bit about reconnecting to nature, paying attention to what the
temperature is of the lake near you or the ocean near you. Pay
attention to what is happening in our coastal communities. Pay
attention to what is happening in agriculture and our ability to
produce food for the future because of changes in weather.
What is happening with rainfall? There is a lot going on. What
happens to clouds in your region of the country? How close do they come
to the Earth? When the rain falls, how severe are those weather events?
These events are happening around our country and around our world.
Mr. Chairman, I have to rise in opposition, obviously, to this
amendment and urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment because I don't
think it leads us into the future. I think it takes us back into the
past, to a world that does not exist anymore.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1845
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire how much time I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not about making a
statement about climate change or the validity of science. This
amendment is about fiscal responsibility and efficiency.
More than 50 universities and institutions around the globe are
engaged in
[[Page H3227]]
climate modeling. This particular issue is being addressed very well by
the academic and nonprofit sector, with much greater efficiency and
speed than government bureaucracy can offer.
Can I remind you of the VA? The government doesn't do anything very
well at all, and we need to start looking at this.
When we talk about responsibility, $19 trillion in debt, there are
some apples that we need to start coming to look at. When we start
looking at institutions that are actually doing this, they are hardly
second-tier institutions--the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
MIT for short; the University of California, Berkeley. There are some
really good people out there doing this work on our behalf.
When we start looking at efficacies and effectiveness, we need to
look no further than the private sector and the universities that are
already doing this. This is something we don't need to be duplicitous
in and be partisan in our outcomes.
I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Al Green of Texas
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. In addition to the amounts otherwise provided
under the heading ``Department of the Army--Corps of
Engineers-Civil--Construction'', there is appropriated
$311,000,000 for fiscal year 2017, to remain available
through fiscal year 2026, for an additional amount for flood
control projects and storm damage reduction projects to save
lives and protect property in areas affected by flooding on
April 19th, 2016, that have received a major disaster
declaration pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act: Provided, That such
amount is designated by the Congress as being for disaster
relief pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman from Texas and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as a preamble to my amendment,
please allow me to thank the chairman, Mr. Simpson, for his courtesies.
I would also like to thank the ranking member, Ms. Kaptur, for her
courtesies.
Mr. Chairman, if you live in Houston, Texas, you monitor the weather.
You monitor the weather, Mr. Chairman, because, over the last year,
Houston, Texas, has been declared a disaster area not once, but twice.
If you live in Houston, Texas, you monitor the weather because, in the
last year, we have spent billions in recovery damages. If you live in
Houston, Texas, you monitor the weather because, in the last year, we
have lost 17 lives to flooding.
Houston has a problem. But there is a solution. This amendment--which
is based upon H.R. 5025, an emergency supplemental bill--would accord
$311 million that will eventually be spent. This is not money that will
not be spent in Houston, Texas, but money that will be spent on
projects that are already authorized. The projects are authorized. The
money is going to be spent.
However, we can take a piecemeal approach and do some now, some
later, and spend billions more in recovery efforts, which is what we
are doing. We are spending billions after floods when we could spend
millions before and save money, save lives, and give Houston, Texas,
and the citizens therein some degree of comfort.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that my friends in this House have a great
deal of sympathy and a good deal of empathy for Houston, Texas, as is
evidenced by the fact that over 70 Members have signed onto the bill,
H.R. 5025. And we have bipartisan support. We have Republicans at the
committee level who are doing what they can within the committee. We
also have Democrats who are working to try to help Houston, Texas.
So I am honored tonight to stand in the well of the House to make
this request, that Houston, Texas, be made a priority and that the
Corps of Engineers, when they do assess the needs of the Nation, that
Houston be given some degree of preference because money is being spent
that need not be spent.
But, more importantly, Mr. Chairman and Madam Ranking Member, lives
are being lost. Houston, Texas, has what are captioned as flash floods.
You can find yourself in a circumstance from which you cannot extricate
yourself, and you may lose your life when we have one of these
inclement, adverse weather conditions.
They happen more often than prognosticated some years ago. It can be
debated as to whether we are having 100-year floods or 500-year floods.
That is debatable. But what is not debatable is the fact that we are
having billion-dollar floods--billion-dollar floods--in Houston, Texas,
a major American city declared a disaster area not once, but twice in
the last year.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, on April 18th the City of Houston
and Harris County, Texas were subjected to paralyzing flooding which
claimed the lives of seven of our citizens and required the rescue of
1,200 more.
Approximately 2,000 housing units were flooded and we are currently
working to figure out where to house the folks who cannot return to
their homes.
This is the second major flooding disaster Houston has experienced in
the last six months and the City is expecting additional rain and
thunderstorms on Friday and Saturday of this week.
Residents in our congressional district as well as other Member's
districts have been severely affected and we must do something to stop
the needless loss of life.
The President has recognized the significance of the catastrophe and
a fulfilled a request for a disaster declaration.
Now it's the job of Congress to help our constituents.
I have worked closely with my neighbor and friend, Rep. Al Green to
offer this amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
The amendment would provide $311 million dollars to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers for the construction, and in most cases, completion
of our bayous and flood control projects.
Flooding is not new in Houston but we've learned how to control it.
Our bayou system has saved countless lives and millions of dollars of
damage since creation.
Unfortunately, due to consistent budget pressure, the Army Corps of
Engineers cannot adequately fund these projects.
This amendment would ensure that our federal, state, and local
authorities have the resources necessary to expedite the flood control
projects we know protect people and property.
Mr. Chair, we can help the victims in our neighborhoods and we must
help them.
I urge this body to pass this emergency funding legislation and do so
quickly.
Point of Order
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. SIMPSON. I make a point of order against the amendment because it
proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an
appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
The amendment includes an emergency designation and, as such,
constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard, if I
may.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized on the point of order.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Would Chairman Simpson allow me to give my
closing comments before we receive the ruling from the Chair, which
will be just a few seconds more, I believe?
How much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 1 minute remaining on
the amendment.
[[Page H3228]]
Does the gentleman wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Well, yes, on the point of order, if so, in so
doing, I may speak to the flooding in Houston, Texas. I want to be
appropriate as I do this, and I will yield to the wisdom of the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair will rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes an emergency
designation.
The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the fine gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Al Green).
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank Ranking Member Kaptur.
Please allow me to continue with just a brief commentary. I have a
colleague who is not here, the Honorable Gene Green. He has asked that
his statement with reference to this amendment be placed in the Record.
I would also add this. A good deal of my comments have emanated from,
as I indicated, H.R. 5025.
This bill has bipartisan support. I see in the Chamber my good friend
and colleague, the Honorable Ted Poe, who is one of the cosponsors of
the legislation.
Some of my other colleagues who are cosponsoring from Texas would
include the Honorable John Culberson, the Honorable Randy Weber, the
Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, also the Honorable Gene Green whom I have
mentioned. There are others as well.
This is bipartisan. This is a recognition that we are going to have
problems that we can solve that will create greater circumstances than
we should have to endure.
There is little reason for us to be back here a year or so from now
indicating that we have had another flood, a billion-dollar flood--
maybe less, maybe more--and that we may have lost lives in that future
event.
My hope is that, while this amendment is not in order--and I accept
the ruling of the Chair--my hope is that we will find a means by which
we will do sooner that which we will do later, spend the $311 million
after we have had additional billion-dollar floods.
This amendment makes good sense. It is a commonsense solution.
I thank the ranking member for her very kind words and the
opportunity that she has accorded me.
I thank you, Mr. Simpson, for being so generous as well.
Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's passion with
this and his obvious concern and interest. I will tell you that there
is a great deal of support for what the gentleman is proposing.
Congressman Poe, Congressman Culberson, as well as Members on your
side of the aisle, have talked to us repeatedly about the issues that
you address here.
While this amendment is out of order, I will promise to the gentleman
that we will work with him to try to address this problem of one of
America's great cities.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. As he
knows, I believe his word is as good as gold.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Yoho
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Department of Energy to employ in excess of 95
percent of the Department's total number of employees as of
the date of the enactment of this Act.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chair, my amendment is simply a commonsense measure to
help reduce the size of out-of-control Federal departments that
continue to grow annually unchecked, increasing both scope, size, and
increasing our spending, both discretionary and mandatory.
Our Nation is over $19 trillion in debt--let me repeat that--$19
trillion in debt. This Chamber, us, we, the people, in government, or
Members of the people's House in charge of the taxpayers' purse
strings, must start taking action to actively reduce our expenditures.
I appreciate the chairman and ranking member for their hard work on
this bill. But I am concerned that the cost it will place on the
American people is too great. We can do better and we must do better.
This amendment is offered as a modest solution and establishes a 5
percent across-the-board cut to the Department of Energy's total
employees.
In the private sector, when scrambling to cover your costs, you have
to make decisions, including sometimes the elimination of positions
that are not essential to the overall purpose and mission of the
organization, or you simply can't afford it.
Not only is reducing the current size of the Department's full-time
staff essential, but I think it also should be accompanied by a 1-year
hiring freeze.
In 2013, when the government was shut down--and I want to remind
people that the government shut down over money, and it wasn't from an
excess; it was from a lack of it--the Department of Energy was faced
with this very dilemma and made a decision to furlough 69 percent of
its workforce. These workers were deemed nonessential.
I understand the circumstances were extraordinary, but the Department
was still able to target areas within it that were not deemed essential
to maintaining its most necessary functions.
My amendment is only requiring the Department to reduce its full-time
employees by 5 percent, which in the scheme of things is nominal, but
essential, in getting our country back on track fiscally, and it is the
right thing to do.
For our Nation to remain prosperous and to keep the American Dream
alive for generations to come, we must make these decisions now. We
must scale back Federal spending. One cannot have personal freedom
without financial freedom.
That same philosophy also applies to nations if they wish to pass on
to their future generations the blessings of our past and our current
posterity, liberties, and freedoms.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1900
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poe of Texas). The gentleman from Idaho is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I understand the desire for an efficient and
effective Federal Government with an appropriately sized workforce. In
fact, if the gentleman has specific programs or offices that he
believes are currently overstaffed, I would be happy to work with him
to see if that is the case and to figure out a way to address any
problems we may find; but this amendment doesn't look at specific
details and make targeted reductions.
It requires the Department of Energy to furlough 5 percent of its
employees on October 1. It doesn't allow the Department time to review
whether it might need more people to carry out its national security
responsibilities, for instance, or fewer people to carry out other
programs whose work is ramping down or is being reduced by this bill.
That is not good government. That is putting almost 800 people across
the country out of work for no good reason.
The underlying bill, on the other hand, includes reasonable and
targeted reductions to funding levels for the Department's
administrative accounts. The departmental administration account was
$36 million below the President's budget request in the bill that was
brought to the floor, and amendments already passed by the House have
resulted in further cuts to the departmental administration. Federal
[[Page H3229]]
salaries and expenses for the National Nuclear Security Administration
are $30 million below the President's request. The funding levels in
this bill send a clear message about growth in the Federal workforce.
Requiring an automatic 5 percent cut across the board is a step too
far. As I said, it is not good government.
For these reasons, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues
to vote against it.
I would also note that when the gentleman said that during the
government shutdown, it furloughed 60-some-odd percent of its
employees, remember, we are talking 16 days here, and these employees
were labeled as ``nonessential.'' The same thing happened in Congress.
At least I know in my office--and I would suspect in the gentleman's
office--we had to declare which employees were nonessential. Those
employees now work for me again and have been rehired. I would suspect
they have been in the gentleman's office, too. Just because they were
furloughed during a 16-day government shutdown doesn't mean they are,
essentially, nonessential.
I don't think this is a well-thought-out amendment. I oppose it, and
I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chair, I join the chairman in opposing this amendment. It is,
truly, a blunt cut--5 percent to the Department of Energy from its
current level with no analysis, no consultation, no consideration of
impact. It is just a blunt cut. It would actually mean about 700 people
who would be fired at headquarters, at field offices, even at our Power
Marketing Administrations across the West. Layoffs of this magnitude
would profoundly impede the Department of Energy's ability to oversee
its nuclear security responsibilities, its science and energy and
environmental cleanup mandates.
I strenuously oppose this amendment and urge the gentleman to bring
back a more thoughtful amendment at some point if he wishes, but I
don't support the blunt cut.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the chairman and ranking member's
opposition.
I would like to remind them that this amendment is a necessary step
in reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government. We are
approaching $20 trillion in debt. That approximates to about $60,000
for every man, woman, and child in America. When we talked about
nonessential employees, I didn't have any in my office. Everybody in my
office was essential, so we didn't lay anybody off. We didn't put them
off.
The gentleman laughs, which is fine.
The executive departments and agencies have gradually taken on the
personification of the 1958 horror flick, ``The Blob.'' Departments
like the DOE are consuming everything in their path and increasing
their own presence in the private sector.
At what point do we say enough is enough? At what point do we say we
are going to get our spending under control?
This is a small, 5 percent incremental change to the Department of
Energy. It is not specific because it gives the flexibility to the
Department to come up with the changes that it wants, keeping in mind
that our Federal Government's number one task is national security; so
the people who are tasked to run the Department of Energy can make the
commonsense and the needed reforms that they need to.
Again, in the private sector, you see the major companies changing
and laying off people as they need to. Government continues to grow,
and it adds not just to the discretionary spending, but also to the
mandatory spending that goes into Social Security and retirement.
We have a responsibility to the American people and to future
generations to fix the problems at hand instead of giving rhetoric and
saying: Well, it is not specific enough. We need to stand up and say:
The time is now. If we start now with small, incremental changes, we
can change the direction of our Nation's debt while we still have the
option because the day will come when we will not have that option with
our out-of-control spending.
I am telling my colleagues, if they really want to change the debt
structure in this country and get a handle on it, it is time we start
now and stop talking about it. I urge people to support this.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Foster
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Secretary of Energy for the Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Illinois and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I offer an amendment on behalf of me and my colleague, Congressman
Scott Garrett, who is my Republican co-chair of the Payer State Caucus,
which is a group of Members opposed to the massive transfer of wealth
between one set of States to another.
This amendment is a very simple one that would prohibit any of the
funds in this bill from being used in the Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research, otherwise known as EPSCoR. EPSCoR was
started in 1978 as an experimental program in the hopes of
strengthening research infrastructure in areas of the country that
receive less than their fair share, however defined.
As a scientist and as an American, I think this goal is commendable,
but the implementation of this program--and, in particular, the
formulas used to earmark grants to a specific set of States--is absurd.
The ability to participate in EPSCoR opportunities is based solely on
whether or not a State has received less than 0.75 percent of the NSF
research funding in the previous 3 years. Let me reiterate that. The
Department of Energy's EPSCoR eligibility is determined by how much NSF
research funding a given State has received in the previous 3 years.
There is no rational basis for earmarking a grant program in one area
of spending based on the spending in another unrelated program.
Moreover, because EPSCoR considers the funding on a per-State basis
rather than on a per capita basis, it has devolved into just another
one of the many programs that steers money into States that already get
far more than their fair share of Federal spending.
EPSCoR is emblematic of a larger problem we have in this country.
Every year, hundreds of billions of dollars are transferred out of
States that pay far more in Federal taxes than they receive back in
Federal spending--the payer States--and into States that receive a lot
more Federal spending than they pay back in taxes--the taker States. In
the case of Illinois, our economy loses $40 billion a year because we
pay far more in Federal taxes than we receive back in Federal spending.
As for my colleague from New Jersey, his State on a per capita basis
has it even worse. This alone is responsible for the fiscal stress in
both of our States.
This is an enormous and unjustifiable redistribution of wealth
between the States. This amendment takes a first small step to begin
rolling back these taker State preferences by eliminating one of the
many--but one of the most unjustifiable of them--the EPSCoR program.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague's passion for the
Office of Science. I am a strong supporter of the Office of Science and
the work that they do.
As the Nation's largest supporter of basic research in the physical
sciences, the Office of Science directs important research funding to
the national laboratories and universities across this
[[Page H3230]]
country. The EPSCoR program extends this even further by supporting
research in areas where there has historically been less Federal
funding.
The program has been successful in laying the foundation and in
expanding research programs in the basic sciences across the Nation.
Taking away this funding puts existing grants and partnerships in
jeopardy at the many universities that receive EPSCoR grants.
Therefore, I must oppose this amendment and urge other Members to do
the same.
Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which would
eliminate funding for the Department of Energy's EPSCoR program.
For more than 40 years, the Department of Energy has provided
academic research funding to colleges and universities around the
Nation, and it has been critical to ongoing research that is essential
to maintaining our competitive edge in energy advancement.
The DOE's Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research,
commonly known as EPSCoR, is a science-driven, merit-based program,
whose mission is to help balance the allocation of DOE and other
Federal research and development funding to avoid an undue
concentration of money to only a few States.
This successful program has had a profound impact on my home State of
Rhode Island by allowing our academic institutions to increase research
capacity, to enrich the experiences of their students, and to
contribute to important advances in a variety of fields. Currently, 24
States, including Rhode Island, and three jurisdictions account for
only about 6 percent of all DOE funding despite the fact that these
States account for 20 percent of the U.S. population. EPSCoR has helped
to stabilize this imbalance in funding, and it should continue to do so
in the 2017 fiscal year and beyond.
In order to ensure robust academic research and outcomes across the
country, geographic diversity in funding should be considered to ensure
that we are taking advantage of the particular experiences, knowledge,
and perspectives of academic institutions from every State. This
amendment to eliminate this successful program would be a step backward
for the United States' commitment to research and development.
Investments in critical programs, such as EPSCoR, are essential to
creating jobs, innovating for the future, and maintaining our
competitive edge in scientific research and a global economy.
I urge my colleagues to join me in strongly opposing this amendment.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, first off, I would like to emphasize that this
does not take away funding from the Office of Science. It eliminates a
very poorly designed set-aside that is based on spending that is
completely unrelated to the actual Office of Science.
If the goal of this program were to equalize the funding in the
Office of Science, then it should be based on the actual expenditures
of the Office of Science so that States that are underrepresented there
would, presumably, be able to qualify for these. It does not do that.
If it were designed to equalize the spending between States that
receive a lot more Federal funding than those that don't, then you
would see a very different set of States in this.
Particularly the fact that it is not based on a per capita basis is
the fundamental flaw in this thing. If you look at those States, the
single distinguishing characteristic is not that they are poor or rural
or anything else; it is that they have small populations, which means
that they are overrepresented in the Senate.
One of the main mechanisms for transferring wealth out of large
States like New Jersey, like Illinois, like California, and a large
number of other States into smaller States are spending formulas that
have, frankly, been cooked up in the Senate, where small States are
overrepresented and the formulas steer large amounts of money into
them.
If this were based on a per capita basis, it would, at least, be
rational. If the Office of Science's funding were based on actual
expenditures, at least in the Department of Energy, it would be
rational. What we see are States receiving EPSCoR funds that get far
more than their share both in Federal funding and in Department of
Energy funding overall. A rational program would, first off, collect
all research funding in all areas and base the set-asides on that.
Secondly, it would do it on a per capita basis.
These are fundamental flaws, and at this point it is preferable to
just eliminate the entire program and start over if people think it is
a useful thing.
I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1915
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's arguments. It
sounds like we are back at the Constitutional Convention: Should we
have the legislative branch of government be represented by the
population, or should it be represented by the States? I know. Let's
compromise. Let's have two bodies, one that represents the States with
an equal number from each State, and one that represents the
population. We will call one the House of Representatives, and we will
call one the Senate. That is how it works out.
We are one Nation, and we try to make sure that funds go to all
States. Some of them have a disadvantage just by the sheer size. And if
you look at Idaho, we are the 12th largest State, and, I suspect,
populationwise, we are down there substantially. Montana is probably
even worse off than we are. So it is almost impossible for the
universities and so forth to compete with some of the larger States.
So we can argue about whether the formulas are correct or absolutely
correct or if they shouldn't be modified or anything else like that,
and I am more than willing to do that, but to eliminate the program I
think is just an entire mistake.
I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mrs. Black
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. 508. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used in contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(8 U.S.C. 1373(a)).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentlewoman
from Tennessee and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, sanctuary cities flaunt our laws and put
our citizens at risk. We need only to look at the tragic 2015 murder of
Kate Steinle in San Francisco to see the grave danger of allowing
cities to ignore the Federal immigration policy. We cannot allow this
to stand. That is why I am introducing this amendment to the Energy and
Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations bill that would
ban funding to any State or city that refuses to comply with our
immigration laws.
Mr. Chair, I recognize that some of my colleagues may say that an
amendment like this is better suited on the Homeland Security or the
Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill; and, indeed, I joined
my colleague, Congressman Gosar, on a letter to the subcommittees
asking that similar language be attached to their bills as well. But
the truth is, Mr. Chairman, amnesty for lawbreakers impacts every
aspect of our society: our jobs, our security, and, in the case of Ms.
Steinle, a young innocent woman's life.
[[Page H3231]]
I believe the crisis of sanctuary cities demands a multipronged
response, and this amendment can be a piece of that effort. If cities
choose to put their citizens at risk in defiance of Federal law--yes,
in defiance of Federal law--there is no reason to continue spending
Federal money on their energy and water projects. It is really that
simple.
I urge my colleagues to take a vote for your constituents and support
this commonsense amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, the Black amendment would prohibit financial
assistance to any State or political subdivision that is acting in
contravention of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act. But this is an energy and water bill. This isn't a
part of our bill.
I rise in opposition to the amendment because it is, frankly,
nongermane. The Department of Energy isn't involved. The Army Corps of
Engineers or the Bureau of Reclamation or the regional independent
agencies that are under the jurisdiction of this bill have nothing to
do with the concern that the gentlewoman raises.
Why are we debating immigration policy on an Energy and Water
Appropriations bill? It doesn't make any sense.
Frankly, the amendment would prohibit funding for State and local
governments that have policies against the sharing of information
related to immigration status, but State and local law enforcement
routinely and automatically share biometric information with ICE that
is used to determine immigration status. They do so through the same
electronic system that shares these biometrics with the FBI for checks
against the criminal databases. So even if this amendment were germane,
I don't think the amendment is necessary or would do what the
gentlewoman believes that it would do.
Even more to the point, if the premise of the amendment is that local
law enforcement agencies aren't notifying ICE prior to releasing from
custody individuals who fit ICE immigration enforcement priorities,
then the amendment is misguided because the Department of Homeland
Security has established a priority enforcement program, known as the
PEP, designed to better work with State and local law enforcement to
take custody of criminal aliens who pose a danger in public safety
before they are released into our communities.
Prior to that program's establishment, 377 jurisdictions refused to
honor some or all of ICE detainers. But as of early this year, 277 of
those jurisdictions, or 73 percent, have now signed up to participate
in that program by responding to ICE requests for notification,
honoring detainer requests, or both.
So the Department of Homeland Security is making good progress in
soliciting the participation of State and local law enforcement in the
PEP program, and we should support them in those efforts and avoid
muddling the issue and reject this amendment.
The Department of Homeland Security is not a part of the
Appropriations Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee; and it is doubtful that this amendment would have any
effect, even if it were germane to the bill and not subject to a point
of order.
Because this biometric sharing system is in effect across the
country, no jurisdiction currently refuses to share information about
immigration with ICE. So, as a result, it is difficult to see how this
amendment would have any effect whatsoever, even if it were offered on
the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Committee or the
Department of Homeland Security bills.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Frankly, it is not
germane to this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chair, it really is ironic that this amendment is
even necessary. It would not be necessary if the executive branch and
the Department of Justice and Homeland Security were all doing their
job and applying the law to each one of these sanctuary cities.
I do want to point to the fact that, back in February of this year,
Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified before the House
Appropriations Committee. It was in that committee that she talked
about cracking down on what is happening in these sanctuary cities. I
want to read what was in The Washington Times that came as a result of
that testimony:
``The Obama administration is preparing to crack down on sanctuary
cities, Attorney General Loretta Lynch told Congress on Wednesday,
saying she would try to stop Federal grant money from going to
jurisdictions that actively thwart agents seeking to deport illegal
immigrants.''
It goes on to say that there was a follow-up in a letter to Mr.
Culberson that week that the Justice Department said that if it
determined that a city or a county receiving Federal grants is refusing
to cooperate with ICE agents, they could lose money and face criminal
prosecution.
So, hopefully, we will see the administration crack down on what
really is unlawful, and that is for these sanctuary cities to be in
operation at all. They should not be receiving any Federal funds in
each one of these appropriation bills, and that is exactly what this
amendment does.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. McNerney
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. No Federal funds under this Act may be used for a
project with respect to which an investigation was initiated
by the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior
during calendar years 2015, 2016, or 2017.
Mr. McNERNEY (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent
that my amendment be considered read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would object to waiving the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will continue to read.
The Clerk continued to read.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman from California and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, California, like much of the West, has
been enduring a devastating drought. This affects the livelihoods of
families, farmers, and small businesses throughout the State.
California's Governor now wants to move forward with something called
WaterFix tunnels plan, which will build two massive tunnels to divert
water from one part of the State to another.
I agree with every other Californian that we need long-term,
statewide solutions to our State's water needs. I agree that there
needs to be some level of certainty for the families, farmers, and
small businesses about our water supply. To do that, we need to focus
on conservation, recycling, reuse, storage, and leak detection and
fixing. The WaterFix tunnels do none of these things. It creates no new
water at all.
California voters and the State legislature haven't agreed on whether
or not to fund this project, which is expected to exceed at least $25
billion, and that cost keeps rising. In addition, the Federal
Government is expected to contribute $4 billion.
The cost of this plan is an even more important issue now that the
Department of the Interior inspector general has opened an
investigation into the possible illegal use of millions of dollars by
the California Department of Water Resources in preparing environmental
documents for the WaterFix tunnels plan. Instead of funding important
habitat improvements, the State
[[Page H3232]]
administration may be using Federal funds for the tunnel plan that will
harm critical habitat for at least five endangered and threatened
species.
California needs a water solution for the entire State, not one that
is too expensive, doesn't create water, and is potentially the source
of misappropriated funds. We have to use the funding for projects that
make sense for California, that make California resilient and
regionally self-sufficient.
My amendment will ban the government from funding tunnels taking our
water, especially while subject to Federal investigation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2
of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
The amendment imposes additional duties.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment requires a new determination on
the Federal officials covered by the bill with regard to investigations
of the Department of the Interior.
The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment has been ruled out and is no longer
pending.
{time} 1930
Amendment Offered by Mr. Byrne
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. In allocating funds made available by this Act
for projects of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Chief of
Engineers shall give priority to the Dog River, Fowl River,
Fly Creek, Bayou Coden, and Bayou La Batre projects.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman from Alabama and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would allow for a number of
important Army Corps of Engineers projects in my home district of
coastal Alabama to move forward.
In many areas, our Nation's waterways are the lifeblood of the
economy. Being from a port city, I certainly understand this and
appreciate the work the Army Corps of Engineers does to keep our
waterways well maintained.
I know the Army Corps works hard in tandem with Congress to
prioritize projects to keep our waterways and ports open for commerce.
Unfortunately, at times, it seems like smaller projects in our more
rural areas get ignored or forgotten altogether. While they may not
include a major waterway, these projects are vital to many of our local
communities and have a significant economic impact from commercial and
recreational fishing as well as tourism in general.
My amendment seeks to prioritize some projects in southwest Alabama
that are long overdue. These include a project to dredge Fly Creek in
Baldwin County, where depths need restoring after severe flooding in
2014. Another project would allow for Dog and Fowl Rivers to be dredged
to help accommodate commercial and recreational fishing. This project
hasn't been touched since 2009. Yet another project that needs
attention is Bayou Coden, which is an important area for local
shipbuilding.
I must thank the Army Corps of Engineers for their attention to a few
projects in coastal Alabama, such as dredging Perdido Pass and the Bon
Secour River. These are critical projects, but more work remains.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that my amendment may not be allowed under
House rules, but I believe it is important to have this debate and
remind the Committee on Appropriations as well as the Army Corps of
Engineers about the importance of these smaller projects that really
make a huge difference in communities across the United States.
In these tight budget times, I know it can be difficult to balance
the need for major Army Corps projects with smaller projects like the
one I have mentioned, but I hope the Army Corps will work with Congress
to seek a proper balance that ensures our smaller waterways receive the
maintenance and attention they deserve.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I do understand the gentleman's concern.
In fact, this is an issue we hear about from quite a few Members. The
administration's insistence on budgeting on tonnage alone with no other
consideration is shortsighted. That is why this bill provides
additional funding specifically for small navigation projects, and the
report encourages the administration to correct its budget criteria.
Unfortunately, the gentleman's amendment would establish priority in
funding for specific projects. That is not something I can support,
particularly in light of the House prohibition on congressional
earmarks.
I would urge my colleague to withdraw his amendment and instead
continue to work with the committee to show the administration the
importance of small navigation projects.
Mr. BYRNE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's words. He is a
man of his word. I appreciate his understanding the importance of these
projects.
Having heard his words, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Alabama?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
Amendment Offered by Mr. McNerney
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to issue Federal debt forgiveness or capital
repayment forgiveness for any district or entity served by
the Central Valley Project if the district or entity has been
subject to an order from the Securities and Exchange
Commission finding a violation of section 17(a)(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77q(a)(2)).
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman from California and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is being raised to raise
awareness of a very unjust situation. My amendment would ban Federal
funding for debt forgiveness to any entity that has been subject to an
order finding a violation of the Securities Act of 1933.
This is timely because there was a hearing yesterday in the Committee
on Natural Resources that included two bills that would affirm a
drainage settlement between the United States and Westlands Water
District. This settlement would award Federal forgiveness
[[Page H3233]]
to Westlands, which has violated such an SEC order.
These agreements matter because they will result in a $300 million
taxpayer giveaway. They also fail to address or solve the extreme water
pollution these irrigation districts discharge into the San Joaquin
River and California delta estuary.
These settlement agreements do not require enough land retirements
and provide more access to water, further draining the delta, and there
are no real performance standards or oversight if pollution runoff is
mismanaged.
Considering recent news of the SEC fining Westlands due to its
conduct in misleading investors about its financial health, the lack of
specific performance standards and enforcement tools makes the current
settlement terms even more questionable.
My amendment will ban the government from funding the debt
forgiveness of these agreements not only because these agreements are
bad for California, but no entity should have Federal debt forgiveness
when they have violated Federal laws.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Byrne
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used for the Energy Information Administration.
(b) The amount otherwise made available by this Act for
``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Energy Information
Administration'' is hereby reduced to $0.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Alabama and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit any funding from
going to the Energy Information Administration, which under this bill
is set to receive $122 million in taxpayer money.
Mr. Chairman, rule XXI of the House rules prohibits funding programs
that are not authorized under law. The authorization process is so
important because it gives Congress the ability to set each agency's
agenda, provide proper oversight, and ensure the agency is fulfilling
the mission it was designed by Congress to meet.
Nearly one-third of the Federal discretionary spending goes to
programs whose mandate to exist has expired. In this bill, we will fund
28 programs that have expired authorizations, many which expired in the
1980s. One program that we are funding has existed since the 1970s, but
has never been authorized by Congress.
The Energy Information Administration, which this amendment would
block funding for, is one of the worst offenders. Its authorization
expired in 1984, over 30 years ago. That means that the last time this
agency received proper congressional instructions, oversight, and
review, the Los Angeles Raiders had won the Super Bowl, Ronald Reagan
was in the White House, and ``Ghostbusters'' was in the theaters.
The Energy Information Administration has seen its fair share of
challenges since it was last authorized. In fact, a few years ago The
Wall Street Journal wrote an article about how errors by the EIA caused
a significant jump in oil prices. The same story noted that the agency
was vulnerable to hacking and that information could be easily
compromised, yet this body has not acted on an authorization.
Mr. Chairman, I don't question that there may be some important
functions performed by this agency, but at some point we must have
accountability in the authorization process. If my amendment is
approved, we can send a message as a House that we are serious about
fiscal discipline and demand that, if a program is worthy to receive
taxpayer funds, it should be authorized by the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, this is kind of a hard one because I have
to tell you, in all honesty, I agree with the gentleman. There are too
many programs that are not authorized. Unfortunately, it is not the
Committee on Appropriations' responsibility. It is the authorizing
committees that haven't been doing their job.
It is not the EIA's fault that they are not reauthorized. It is that
Congress has not done their job in reauthorizing them. As the gentleman
has stated, there are many, many programs throughout. I think the whole
Department of State is up for reauthorization and hasn't been
reauthorized.
The gentleman is absolutely right. We need to do something about
that. We have been debating and discussing how exactly you do that. We
have had various proposals. In fact, members of our Conference are
looking at it now. I know Mr. McClintock is very interested in doing
this. We have talked about it several times. We are trying to find some
way to force the authorizing committees to actually do their job and do
the reauthorizations that are necessary.
But I rise to oppose this amendment. The amendment proposes to
eliminate funding for the Energy Information Administration, a semi-
independent agency that collects, analyzes, and disseminates impartial
energy statistics and information to the Nation. The EIA performs
essential work for understanding the electricity generation and energy
consumption in the complex energy markets that make up our Nation. The
EIA provides a statistical and informational service to the private
sector that the private sector would not.
Eliminating this funding would immediately impact the ability to
perform energy policy and would remove essential reports on the energy
market. Eliminating the EIA would have virtually no effect on the total
spending in this bill, but would negatively impact our ability to make
energy policies.
I must oppose this amendment, although I sympathize with what the
gentleman is trying to do. I would be willing to work with him and any
others who are willing to work with a way to force the authorizing
committees to do the authorizations that should be being redone or the
reauthorizations that should being redone.
The reason things expire and the reason they need to be reauthorized
is because you need to look to see if they are doing what we intended
when we enacted them. Sometimes they are. Sometimes they are not.
Sometimes they need be modified. Sometimes they need to be amended. But
if we don't get back to reauthorizing them, that never happens, and
that is our fault, Congress' fault.
Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. I appreciate the chairman yielding to me. I agree with
his opposition to this amendment.
Why blame one of the best parts of our government, in my opinion, for
Congress not doing its job? I am always impressed with the Energy
Information Administration. Their data is stellar. They are
professionally run. The business community looks to them. Frankly, the
global energy community looks to them.
I think the amendment is shortsighted and would eliminate one of the
best, most important sources of information that guides all of our
decisions. They are so precise. The data that they present also can be
easily understood. They have maps. They have charts. They have
continuous data over a number of years.
I think the gentleman wants to solve a problem, but I think that one
could say that this amendment might be penny wise and pound foolish
because, if you have had any experience with the Energy Information
Administration, you know how excellent they really are and their work
is.
We depend on it in order to make solid decisions to save money or to
make decisions that are sound rather than unsound. Don't rip the heart
out
[[Page H3234]]
of one of the most important administrations that we have at the
Federal level on the energy front.
I thank the chairman for yielding.
I would urge that this amendment be defeated.
Mr. SIMPSON. Let me just explain that this is something that I have
been trying to find a solution to for a number of years. When I was
chairman of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
Appropriations Subcommittee--this has been like 4 years ago--the
Endangered Species Act had not been reauthorized for 23 years at the
time. It is like 27 years now that it has not been reauthorized. We
brought down the Interior appropriation bill, and we put no money in it
for endangered species listing or for critical habitat designation, and
the intent was to force the Committee on Natural Resources to do a
reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act.
{time} 1945
The individual who was supporting me the most was the then-chairman
of the Natural Resources Committee. Well, of course, we lost an
amendment because nobody wants to eliminate all the funding for the
Endangered Species Act. But the gentleman that supported me the most
was the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee at the time, who
had the ability and authority to go do a reauthorization of the
Endangered Species Act, but didn't do it. And it still hasn't been
done.
It is frustrating. I want to work with anybody in this body that is
willing to try to find a way to put pressure on the committees to do
their job.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. I
accept his offer. I look forward to working with him. We have got to
start somewhere, and this is a good place to start.
I heard the gentlewoman's remarks. The Wall Street Journal reported
that this agency caused an increase in oil prices by one of its
malfunctions. So I don't think it is quite a perfect agency as she made
it out to be. This is a point that we need to make. And I intend to
continue to make this point as we go through the appropriations
process.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York
Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used in contravention of Executive Order No. 13672 of July
21, 2014 (``Further Amendments to Executive order 11478,
Equal Employment in the Federal Government, and Executive
Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity'').
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from New York and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, last week, I came
to the floor to offer an amendment to preserve basic workplace
protections for LGBT Americans. My amendment would have kept taxpayer
dollars from going to government contractors who discriminate against
LGBT employees. That is it. It said you cannot take taxpayer dollars
and fire people just for being gay.
There are 28 million Americans working for employers who receive
taxpayer dollars, and simple math will tell you millions would have
been protected from arbitrary firing. So it made sense, it was fair,
and it deserved a fair vote.
When the vote was held, a bipartisan majority of this House,
including 36 members of the majority party, supported my amendment.
That tally clock right there showed 217 ``yes'' votes--4 more than the
213 needed that day to pass. With all time expired, it was clear as can
be that equality had won the vote.
But when the world watched, something else happened. Something
shameful happened. Something about sticking up for basic workplace
fairness for LGBT Americans rankled certain people around here.
Even though my amendment simply would have applied the same standard
to LGBT employees that we have long applied when people are fired
because of their race or gender or religion or disability, it simply
was too much. Even though we would have preserved time-honored
religious exemptions, it was too much. Something about treating LGBT
people fairly just wouldn't do.
So people went to work. Even though all Members had voted, strangely,
the expired clock stayed up four times longer than it should have. The
gavel did not fall. And as we all watched, the tally began to change:
217, 216, 215. The votes in support were dropping. Members of this
House were changing their votes. Why? From being in support of
fairness, they were now changing them to be opposed to it.
Down the vote went, 214, 213, and yet no one came to the well, as is
customary, to announce their vote. It was all in secret, happening out
of sight, so no one might see the ugly reality of what was happening.
And what happened? Well, when it hit 212, one vote shy of the
majority it needed to pass--one vote shy of the majority it had a few
moments earlier--the gavel came down and the result was declared. A
defeat.
It was a shameful exercise, made more shameful in that it took place
on a civil rights vote that enjoyed a bipartisan majority of support in
this House. From Portland, Maine, to Des Moines, Iowa, to southeast
Oregon, to Bakersfield, California, newspaper editorial boards, radio
hosts, and ordinary citizens joined a chorus that was heard first on
this floor. ``Shame,'' they said. Shame on those who would betray the
will of this House, who would betray this vote, and shame on anyone who
would rig this vote and rig our democracy.
Shame on those who snatched discrimination from the jaws of equality,
especially those ``Switching Seven'' who, having at first voted for
fairness, allowed themselves to be dragged backward into voting for
discrimination.
On Friday, at a meeting of my Veterans' Advisory Board back home, I
spoke to decorated military heroes and civilians who have dedicated
their lives to the service of this country. To a person, they were
outraged by what happened on the floor of this House.
One member of the group, Edie, who served as a first lieutenant and
combat medic in Vietnam, said when she heard about the rigged vote, she
thought of her daughter, who right now is serving her country in the
military. And Edie's daughter is a lesbian.
Edie said:
When my daughter finishes her active military service, she
will enter the civilian workforce--perhaps for a government
contractor, as so many vets do. Will they be able to fire
her, even though she and I are both veterans?
Mr. Chairman, does Edie's service in combat count for anything here?
Does her daughter's service right now to this country count for
anything here?
Her daughter isn't alone. There are 71,000 Active Duty LGBT
servicemen and -women right now and over 1 million LGBT veterans.
Making it easier to fire LGBT Americans, even LGBT veterans, isn't
honoring our values. It is sacrificing them to preserve a worn out and
dying prejudice that weakens our Nation rather than strengthening it.
So, today, I want to thank Speaker Ryan for allowing an open process
so that I can offer my amendment again. It is through this open process
that we can give our colleagues another chance--a second chance--to do
the right thing and to stand for equality.
Let us this time ensure that no taxpayer dollars will be used to
discriminate against hardworking Americans simply because of who they
are, simply because of who they love. And we will also reaffirm
legitimate religious exemptions that the President also included in his
executive orders on this subject.
Discrimination has no place in our law. It does not make our water
cleaner. It does not power our homes. It doesn't defeat ISIS. It
doesn't support our veterans.
Every American deserves the right to work, support a family, and
achieve the American Dream, regardless of who they are or who they
love.
[[Page H3235]]
I urge my colleagues to stand up to discrimination and adopt my
amendment to the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Pitts to Amendment Offered by Mr. Sean Patrick
Maloney of New York
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment to the
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
In the section proposed to be added, insert before the
period at the end the following: ``, except as required by
the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article I
of the Constitution''.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman from Pennsylvania and
a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes on the amendment to the
amendment.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer this perfecting
amendment to my colleague's amendment.
This is amendment is very simple. It would merely state that, as the
Federal Government spends money with regard to contracting, the
administration must not run afoul of the First Amendment, the 14th
Amendment, or Article I of the Constitution.
The President's executive order referred to in the Maloney amendment
defines a law that was never defined by Congress. It violates the equal
protection rights of individuals who are merely seeking work from the
government.
With this amendment, this Congress can help ensure that, while funds
may be going out the door to implement this policy, he must respect
Congress' authority to write the law, respect an individual's right to
exercise his or her religion, and respect their rights to work.
Does anyone in this Chamber seriously oppose Article I of the
Constitution, the First Amendment, or the 14th Amendment?
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Constitution and
limiting the damaging effects of this executive order.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, may I have the
amendment read back? Does it include only the First Amendment, the 14th
Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause?
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment to the amendment
will be reported.
There was no objection.
The Clerk reported the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I would like to ask
my colleague what is meant by Article I of the Constitution, if he
could clarify that for us.
No one who supports my amendment--certainly, not I--has any problem
with the First Amendment, the 14th Amendment, particularly the Equal
Protection Clause, or with Article I of the Constitution, I assure the
gentleman.
I also, however, would note--and I am sure the gentleman would
appreciate--that many times throughout American history, Presidents,
under their authority under the Constitution, have acted in the area of
workplace discrimination, particularly in the executive branch.
For example, would the gentleman oppose President Truman's action to
integrate the armed services? Perhaps he would like that order to be
circumscribed in some way, if he thinks that violates Article I of the
Constitution, the 14th Amendment, or the First Amendment to the
Constitution?
In other words, the President has, throughout American history, under
his constitutional authority, taken actions to widen the circle of
opportunity and to end discrimination in the executive branch.
Nothing in my amendment is in any way at odds with the Constitution
of the United States or the amendments thereto, but it should not be
allowed to go unchallenged on the floor of this House to suggest that
President Obama, in his executive action in 2014, ran afoul of any of
those things either.
Indeed, I am unaware of any legal challenge to the President's action
in those executive orders of 2014. It is pretty clear to me that, if
there was something illegal or unconstitutional about them, there would
have been a challenge.
I don't think anybody seriously contests the President's authority to
do what he did in 2014, and many Americans welcome it as one of the
signature equal protection actions by a Commander in Chief or by a
President of the United States.
So, far from being concerned about reconciling our activities with
the Constitution, we believe they are perfectly consistent. Therefore,
I would ask the gentleman if he would be willing to also include, since
we are so fond of the Constitution, Article II of the Constitution
which specifies the powers of the President?
If the gentleman would answer that question.
In other words, if we are so fond of the Constitution, what do you
say we follow the whole thing, including the Civil War amendments,
including some of the things about equal protection and due process.
You might have heard something about that. We had a little bit dispute
about that in the mid-19th century.
What do you say we abide by the whole Constitution; the part that
tries to make it more progressive, more inclusive of people like me, of
people of color, of women, of people who are shut out when it was
written?
How about we include the whole Constitution? Can we do that?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will address his remarks to the
Chair.
Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, how about we
include the whole Constitution? Can we do that?
Hearing no objection, I assume we are including the entire
Constitution, including the powers of the President under Article II.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has yielded back
his time.
Therefore, the gentleman from New York is recognized on the amendment
to the amendment.
Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, how much time do
I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Well, then, let me just say
again, the point of today's vote is to redo a mistake that was made in
this House.
{time} 2000
But of course it wasn't really a mistake, was it?
It was an effort to change the outcome of a bipartisan majority
supporting an amendment to end discrimination in Federal contracting.
So today, what we are doing is getting a second bite at that apple,
giving Members a chance to vote their conscience, to do the right
thing, free from any pressure, free from any vote swapping or
switching, free from a clock being held open long after it should have
closed.
The American people want to know if their government is on the level,
so let's have this vote on the level. We know there is a bipartisan
majority for equality in this House, and, if allowed a fair vote, we
know what the outcome will be. I look forward to that vote, Mr.
Chairman.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of
order on the amendment to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The reservation of the point of order is withdrawn.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say that I associate
myself with Congressman Maloney's remarks. Workplace discrimination is
a crime that we, as lawmakers, have long sought to mitigate.
[[Page H3236]]
I have to say I admire him for his courage, for his eloquence, and
for being here this evening.
I yield to the gentleman from New York in order to complete his
statement.
Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, how much time is
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 4\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it
perfectly clear that we stand here as servants of the Constitution, all
of us, and all of the actions we take here are subject to that
beautiful document, as amended.
So there is nothing about the gentleman's amendment, to the extent
that it simply restates what is obvious which is that all of our
actions are subject to the Constitution, that we would object to.
My only point is simply that we need to read it as a whole document.
We don't need to read anything into it. We can read the text. We can
understand the history of the text. We can understand the global and
expansive nature of the language written into the Constitution after
the searing experience of the Civil War around equal protection, around
due process.
We don't fear the Constitution; we welcome it. We embrace it. We
claim it as our own when we come to this floor and ask that the circle
of opportunity be widened for others who have been excluded before.
We think that is in the best tradition of the American Constitution.
We believe the Constitution provides a series of promises that, as King
said, it is a promissory note and that a check was written; we are
coming to cash it so we will all be treated equally, so we will all be
treated fairly, that we all count. Regardless of who we love,
regardless of the color of our skin, whether we walk in or roll in, we
believe we all count. And we believe that the Constitution enshrines
those values in the most beautiful way in all of human history.
So, far from being concerned in any way by the gentleman's amendment,
we welcome it.
But let it not detract from the fact that what happened in this House
was an effort to enshrine and rationalize discrimination under Federal
law. And despite the success we had in defeating that with a bipartisan
majority, there were those here who wanted to perpetuate discrimination
at the expense of equality.
That is inconsistent with the Constitution, Mr. Chairman.
And let that be the final word on this.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 1\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, let me just end by saying, this country has
a long and storied history of supporting civil rights and worker
rights, and that spirit was clearly violated last week during the vote
on the spending bill.
We know that businesses should operate under strict rules of fairness
and equality, and, certainly, the Federal Government should.
I am just grateful that we could all be here this evening and try to
find a way to move America forward and to make progress, not just for
the people of this country, but for humankind.
This amendment will ensure that we are able to achieve a fully
equitable workplace and society.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. All time having expired on the amendment to the
amendment, does any Member seek time in opposition to the first-degree
amendment offered by Representative Maloney?
If not, the Chair will put the question on the amendment to the
amendment.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney).
The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney), as amended.
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a
recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York, as
amended, will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Byrne
Mr. BYRNE. Mr Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be used in contravention of--
(1) the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42
U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.);
(2) Executive Order 13279; or
(3) sections 702(a) and 703(e)(2) of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1(a), 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(e)(2)), or
section 103(d) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 12113(d)), with respect to any religious
corporation, religious association, religious educational
institution, or religious society.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Alabama and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, unlike our European forebears, the Framers
made clear that our Nation would have no state church. Instead, under
the First Amendment, all will be protected in the free exercise of the
religion of their choosing, and we have a proud tradition of
conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, working together
to protect this free exercise right.
In the 1963 case of Sherbert v. Verner, the liberal Justice William
Brennan mandated that any government intrusion into one's free exercise
must meet the most stringent standard of judicial review, strict
scrutiny.
It was actually the conservative Justice Antonin Scalia who wrote the
1990 opinion in Employment Division v. Smith that rolled back the
protections of Sherbert.
Fortunately, 3 years later, a Democrat Congress and a Democrat
President, Bill Clinton, rallied large, bipartisan majorities to
legislatively overturn Smith in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,
otherwise known as RFRA, and restores strict scrutiny when the
government seeks to invade the free exercise of religion.
RFRA had 170 cosponsors. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi)
and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) were original cosponsors.
It passed by a voice vote in the House and 97-3 in the Senate.
On July 21, 2014, President Obama signed Executive Order 11478
banning Federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual
orientation and gender identity in hiring.
Unfortunately, despite our broad history of working together to
protect the free exercise right, the President refused to provide
conscience protections for religious-based organizations who engage in
government contracting.
This amendment would clarify that existing religious freedom
protection already in law under the RFRA, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and President Bush's
Executive Order 13279 would apply, irrespective of the amendment
offered by Mr. Maloney.
We can debate the merits of Executive Order 11478; however, we should
have no problem ensuring that religious entities still enjoy the
protections of the free exercise of religion.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I don't have a copy of the amendment in
front of me, but from what I have listened to the gentleman, it sounds
like discrimination in the guise of religious freedom, and I would hope
that isn't what the gentleman intends.
I have just been given language: ``None of the funds made available
by this Act shall be used in contravention of the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act.''
I don't have full confidence that the equal protection of the laws
for the
[[Page H3237]]
faith-based community are fully considered in this amendment, and I
would have to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I want to make very clear that my amendment
says not one single thing about discrimination. It talks about
religious freedom.
We treat religious freedom sometimes in this country like it is a
secondary right. It is not. It is a fundamental right. And what my
amendment does is make sure that people of religious conscience still
have that freedom.
So, far from being discrimination, it makes sure that we have
freedoms for people that they have had for over 200 years; under the
1964 Civil Rights Act, for over 50 years; under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, for over 25 years; and under RFRA, for over 20 years.
This is not new. This is not novel. This is settled law. We are
making sure we protect people here. This has nothing to do with
discrimination.
I know that some people would like to wipe out the effect of church,
the effect of religion, the effect of faith in the public square in
America. But that is not what our Constitution is about, and I think
this House should stand up for religious freedom for everybody.
So I ask that everybody in this House vote for this very important
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama will
be postponed.
{time} 2015
Amendment Offered by Mr. Higgins
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Secretary of Energy to carry out, or for the
salary of any officer or employee of the Department of Energy
to carry out, the proposed action of the Department to
transport target residue material from Ontario, Canada to the
United States, described in the supplement analysis entitled
``Supplement Analysis for the Foreign Research Reactor Spent
Nuclear Fuel Acceptance Program'', issued by the Department
in November 2015 (DOE/EIS-0218-SA-07).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from New York and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Simpson and
Ranking Member Kaptur for their work on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit the shipment of dangerous,
highly radioactive liquid nuclear waste, which the Department of Energy
plans to begin shipping by truck later this year in a series of over
100 shipments from Ontario, Canada, to South Carolina.
The department wants to transport this liquid waste, which is far
more radioactive than spent nuclear fuel, across the northern border at
the Peace Bridge and through downtown Buffalo.
In contrast to spent nuclear fuel in solid form, which has a history
of being shipped by land, this would constitute the first ever shipment
of liquid nuclear waste by truck in a transportation cask that was
never certified for this purpose. Its liquid form, if spilled, could
make containment nearly impossible.
The route crosses the Great Lakes, across the busiest passenger
crossing at the northern border, and through a high-density
metropolitan area. In the event of an attack or an accident, the
consequences could be devastating.
In spite of these concerns, the Department of Energy failed to comply
with the National Environmental Policy Act by not commencing with a new
Environmental Impact Statement, instead, relying on old, outdated
information.
The evolving threat picture since 9/11 requires that the Department
of Energy reassess the manner in which it ships such dangerous
materials.
Proceeding with the shipments would also ignore the will of the
House, which unanimously passed legislation requiring the Department of
Homeland Security perform a terrorism threat assessment regarding the
transportation of chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological
materials through the United States.
To reiterate, my bill would only impact one type of nuclear waste
shipment, and other shipments of spent nuclear fuel would not be
affected.
I urge support for my amendment, which would prohibit these shipments
until the Department of Energy performs a full and thorough review
process. Proceeding without doing so would seriously compromise public
safety.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Huizenga of Michigan). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Grayson
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enter into a contract with any offeror or any of
its principals if the offeror certifies, as required by
Federal Acquisition Regulation, that the offeror or any of
its principals:
(A) within a three-year period preceding this offer has
been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against it
for: commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection
with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public
(Federal, State, or local) contract or subcontract; violation
of Federal or State antitrust statutes relating to the
submission of offers; or commission of embezzlement, theft,
forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records,
making false statements, tax evasion, violating Federal
criminal tax laws, or receiving stolen property; or
(B) are presently indicted for, or otherwise criminally or
civilly charged by a governmental entity with, commission of
any of the offenses enumerated above in subsection (A); or
(C) within a three-year period preceding this offer, has
been notified of any delinquent Federal taxes in an amount
that exceeds $3,000 for which the liability remains
unsatisfied.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is identical to other
amendments that have been inserted by voice vote into every
appropriations bill considered under an open rule during the 113th and
114th Congresses. The amendment simply expands the list of parties with
whom the Federal Government is prohibited from contracting due to
serious misconduct on the part of the contractors.
I hope that this amendment remains noncontroversial.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Babin
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be made available to enter into new contracts with, or new
agreements for Federal assistance to, the Islamic Republic of
Iran.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of my amendment to
[[Page H3238]]
prohibit any contracts or Federal assistance to the Islamic Republic of
Iran from being funded in this Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill.
As a result of this recent nuclear deal, Iran is now cleared to
receive up to $150 billion in assets that should have never made its
way back to the Ayatollahs.
Iran is the world's leading State sponsor of terrorism. Any dollar
sent to Iran's government is a dollar sent to a brutal, apocalyptic,
and dangerous regime that routinely flouts international norms,
threatens to wipe Israel off the map, captures and humiliates our U.S.
sailors, flagrantly violating Geneva Convention rules, and is
responsible for the murders of hundreds of United States soldiers.
Passage of this amendment will wipe the slate clean of any potential
for money from the hardworking taxpayers in my district and from across
the United States of America to go to Iran. No money for contracts to
buy their heavy water, no money for their so-called civilian nuclear
power program. Let's not get fooled again like we did with North Korea.
The Iran deal was only given an ``aye'' vote by 162 Members of this
House--a very small total. The President may have lifted the sanctions
that Congress passed in 2010, but there is no reason that we cannot
take this step to show Iran and the world that we are serious about
putting them back in place for their flagrant violations.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment and want to begin
by saying that ideological riders have no place on appropriation bills,
certainly on this bill, and, frankly, I don't believe that this is even
germane to the Energy and Water Development bill.
This amendment is just the first of many possible attempts to tie the
hands of the administration from implementing an extremely important
international agreement that will result in exactly the opposite of
what the gentleman infers.
The plan of action that was agreed to by several countries, P5+1,
closed the four pathways through which Iran could get to a nuclear
weapon in less than a year. We do not gain anything by putting
limitations on United States' ability to engage or monitor Iran's
compliance with the agreement. The President has repeatedly said that
he will continue to take aggressive steps to counter any activities in
violation of existing sanctions, and this includes restrictions on
certain nuclear-related transfers, conventional arms, and ballistic
missile items, certain asset freezes and travel bans, as well as cargo
inspections.
Today, international inspectors are on the ground, and Iran is being
subjected to the most comprehensive, intrusive inspection regime ever
negotiated to monitor a nuclear program. Inspectors will remain to
monitor Iran's key nuclear facilities 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
For decades to come, inspectors will have access to Iran's entire
nuclear supply chain. That is an incredible achievement.
The Department of Energy's vast expertise in the nuclear fuel cycle,
nuclear safeguards and security, and nuclear materials plays a critical
role in informing and ensuring that Iran is meeting its nuclear
commitments.
To date, experts at the Department of Energy headquarters, seven
national laboratories, and two Department of Energy nuclear sites have
been actively involved in reaching and now implementing the agreement.
These experts will continue to support the International Atomic Energy
Agency's monitoring and verification activities worldwide and are vital
as the United States works with our P5+1 and European Union partners to
ensure viability into Iran's nuclear program.
Why would we proactively cut off our nonproliferation program and
experts from working to prevent Iran to achieve nuclear weapons? Isn't
that counter to our own national security interests?
In other words, if Iran tries to cheat, if they try to build a bomb
covertly, we will catch them, the world will catch them, unless we here
in Congress undo these efforts and adopt amendments such as the one we
are discussing now.
The bottom line is this: Iran was steadily expanding its nuclear
program. The agreement has now cut off every single path to build a
bomb.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this harmful amendment and encourage my
colleagues to oppose as well.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Lowenthal
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __ (a) None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used in contravention of Executive Order No. 13547 of
July 19, 2010.
(b) None of the funds made available by this Act may be
used to implement, administer, or enforce section 506 of this
Act.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I, along with Representatives Cicilline,
Farr, Langevin, Keating, Beyer, and Peters have introduced an amendment
to clarify that the National Ocean Policy is a critical multiagency
action that should be implemented.
Mr. Chair, my district is a poster child for the need for ocean
coordination and information sharing between local, State, and Federal
Governments, and the military, ports, shippers, energy developers,
recreational users, and other stakeholders. I know firsthand that we
can have a thriving ocean economy and at the same time protect and
conserve our precious ocean resources.
For example, the Port of Long Beach is the second busiest port in the
United States in my district, moving $140 billion in goods, supporting
1.4 million jobs in the United States.
Offshore oil platforms extract crude oil in San Pedro Bay less than a
mile from my front door. San Clemente Island in my district has a Navy
training ground and a ship-to-shore firing range. Nearby waters are
home to seabirds, fisheries, and migrating whales. Sea level rise and
extreme weather threaten neighborhoods and businesses all along my
district and the entire coast of California.
With so much activity happening, it simply makes sense to have the
Navy at the table when NOAA is working on siting of a new aquaculture
installation. It makes sense to have the fishery management council
weigh in when oil rigs are being decommissioned, and it is a no-brainer
that NOAA, the Coast Guard, and the ports all work together to get
these massive ships in and out of port safely.
We want these collaborations to happen because we want to have a
sustainable ocean economy, and by developing regional plans and having
a framework for multi-stakeholder involvement, we can streamline this
process and promote a robust ocean economy that also conserves our
precious ocean resources.
The country and my district need a comprehensive approach to our
ocean resources, which the National Ocean Policy provides.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, while there may be instances in which
greater coordination would be helpful in ensuring our ocean and coastal
resources are available to future generations, any such coordination
must be done carefully to protect against Federal overreach.
{time} 2030
As we have seen recently with the proposed rule to redefine waters of
the United States, strong congressional oversight is needed to ensure
that we protect private property rights.
Unfortunately, the way the administration developed its National
Ocean
[[Page H3239]]
Policy, it increases the opportunities for overreach. The
implementation plan is so broad and so sweeping, that it may allow the
Federal Government to effect agricultural practices, mining, energy
producers, fishermen, and anyone else whose actions may have an impact
on the oceans.
The fact is the administration did not work with Congress to develop
this plan and has even refused to provide relevant information to
Congress, so we can't be sure how sweeping it actually will be. That is
why I support the language in the underlying bill and, therefore,
oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, there is an agreement among all of us
that there needs to be more coordination among all of the stakeholders
to make smart decisions about our ocean resources. However, many on the
other side of the aisle oppose the National Ocean Policy on the grounds
that, as we have just heard, it is overreach, which is authorized by an
executive order of a President that they don't like.
To me, this seems petty. National Ocean Policy is not a failed policy
like some suggest, nor is it an instance of executive overreach. It is
merely a commonsense way to facilitate multistakeholder collaboration
on complex ocean issues, and it promotes economic opportunity, national
security, and environmental protection.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Meadows
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be spent by the Army Corps of Engineers to award contracts
using the lowest price technically acceptable source
selection process unless the source selection decision is
documented and such documentation includes the rationale for
any business judgments and tradeoffs made or relied on by the
source selection authority, including benefits associated
with additional costs.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be considered read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from North Carolina and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. The night is getting
long, and the committee has done some great work on the underlying
bill.
This amendment is a commonsense amendment, one meant to provide
transparency as it relates to the Army Corps of Engineers and the
awarding of contracts. When they actually award a technically
acceptable lowest bid, the rationale and the other transparency
documents would actually be reported that no funds could be extended
except for those express purposes.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act for
``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Science'' may be
used in contravention of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentlewoman
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member,
Ms. Kaptur, her staff, and the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr.
Simpson, and staff and others because they have been working hard.
I want to emphasize that this is an amendment that was approved and
adopted in an identical form on April 29, 2015, during the 114th
Congress, as an amendment to H.R. 2028, the Energy and Water
Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
I do this amendment because I do believe it is extremely important.
If you travel around this country, whether it is Silicon Valley,
whether it is NASA, whether it is dealing with energy resources,
renewable and otherwise, you realize the importance of science,
technology, engineering, and math.
Twenty years ago, Mr. Chairman, on February 11, 1994, President
Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, directing Federal agencies to
identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-
income populations.
The Department of Energy seeks to provide equal access to these
opportunities for underrepresented groups in STEM, including
minorities, Native Americans, and women. We need professionals in these
areas to be able to assess the various impacts, environmental impacts,
on the minority community. But, more importantly, we also need our
organizations, such as Historically Black Colleges and other colleges,
to make sure to include opportunities for minority and women students.
They make up 70 percent of college students, but only 45 percent of
undergraduate STEM degree holders.
This large pool of untapped talent is a great potential source of
STEM professionals. As the Nation's demographics change, I think it is
imperative that we emphasize in the various Federal agencies that we
need to provide and extend opportunities for minorities in science,
technology, engineering, and math.
Earlier today, I had the opportunity to visit with Scott Kelly. One
would call him the miracle astronaut, spending over 300 days on the
International Space Station. The International Space Station was the
entity built some years ago when I was on the Science, Space, and
Technology Committee. But to realize that a human being tested himself
to stay, an American making history. I believe science, technology,
engineering, and math commemorates and celebrates the giant work of
Scott Kelly, but it produces more Scott Kellys.
I applaud Energy Secretary Moniz's commitment, which will increase
the Nation's economic competitiveness and enable more of our people to
realize their full potential.
I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment, as it has been
supported in the past, to again, through this legislation, emphasize
the importance of science, technology, engineering, and math.
I ask support for the Jackson Lee amendment.
Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to describe my amendment,
which simply provides that: ``None of the funds made available by this
Act for `Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Science' may be used in
contravention of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C.
7101 et seq.).''
This amendment was approved and adopted in identical form on April
29, 2015, during the 114th Congress as an amendment to H.R. 2028, the
Energy and Water Resources Appropriations Act of 2016.
Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur
for their stewardship in bringing this legislation to the floor and for
their commitment to preserving America's great natural environment and
resources so that they can serve and be enjoyed by generations to come.
Mr. Chair, twenty years ago, on February 11, 1994, President Clinton
issued Executive Order 12898, directing federal agencies to identify
and address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income
populations.
The Department of Energy seeks to provide equal access in these
opportunities for underrepresented groups in STEM, including
minorities, Native Americans, and women.
Mr. Chair, women and minorities make up 70 percent of college
students, but only 45 percent of undergraduate STEM degree holders.
This large pool of untapped talent is a great potential source of
STEM professionals.
As the nation's demographics are shifting and now most children under
the age of one are minorities, it is critical that we close the
[[Page H3240]]
gap in the number of minorities who seek STEM opportunities.
I applaud the Energy Secretary Moniz's commitment which will increase
the nation's economic competitiveness and enable more of our people to
realize their full potential.
Mr. Chair, there are still a great many scientific riddles left to be
solved--and perhaps one of these days a minority engineer or biologist
will come-up with some of the solutions.
The larger point is that we need more STEM educators and more
minorities to qualify for them.
The energy and science education programs funded in part by this bill
will help ensure that members of underrepresented communities are not
placed at a disadvantage when it comes to the environmental
sustainability, preservation, and health.
Through education about the importance of environmental
sustainability, we can promote a broader understanding of science and
how citizens can improve their surroundings.
Through community education efforts, teachers and students have also
benefitted by learning about radiation, radioactive waste management,
and other related subjects.
The Department of Energy places interns and volunteers from minority
institutions into energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.
The DOE also works to increase low income and minority access to STEM
fields and help students attain graduate degrees as well as find
employment.
With the continuation of this kind of funding, we can increase
diversity, provide clean energy options to our most underserved
communities, and help improve their environments, which will yield
better health outcomes and greater public awareness.
But most importantly businesses will have more consumers to whom they
may engage in related commercial activities.
My amendment will help ensure that underrepresented communities are
able to participate and contribute equitably in the energy and
scientific future.
I ask my colleagues to join me and support the Jackson Lee Amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Stivers
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the Cape Wind Energy Project on the Outer
Continental Shelf off Massachusetts, Nantucket Sound.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Ohio and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which
would prohibit the Department of Energy funding from being used for the
Cape Wind offshore wind generation project in Cape Cod, Massachusetts.
I offered this amendment in last year's appropriation, and it was
adopted by a voice vote, so I believe it should be fairly
noncontroversial. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Nearly 2 years ago, the Department of Energy offered conditional
commitments for the Cape Wind project of a $150 million loan guarantee.
Since that time, the project has been plagued by setbacks amid concerns
about its impact on the environment, disruptions of safety for
passenger aircraft, or just the high cost of electricity produced by
the proposed facility. Last year, two of the State's utilities
terminated contracts to purchase power from the wind farm, jeopardizing
the viability of the project.
I believe we should encourage the development of all forms of energy.
Renewable sources like wind power are important for our Nation's energy
portfolio.
But this project, in particular, has a troubled history. This
amendment seeks to ensure that the American taxpayers do not have to
foot the bill if the project fails.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:
Sec. __. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the amount made available for ``Corps of
Engineers-Civil--Investigations'', and increasing the amount
made available for the same account, by $3,000,000.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentlewoman
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, allow me again to thank Mr. Simpson
and Ms. Kaptur for their work on this energy and water bill that is so
very important, and emphasize the importance of this legislation to
many and all regions of the United States of America.
My amendment speaks to the need for robust funding for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers investigations account. Let me be very clear. It
speaks to the general need for robust funding for the investigations
account, and it speaks to it in terminology of redirecting $3 million
for increased funding for postdisaster watershed assessment studies,
like the one that is being contemplated for the Houston/Harris County
metropolitan area. It does this to emphasize the importance of the
investigations account, not to single out a particular project, but for
describing a project, which I will take time to do.
I am pleased that H.R. 5055 provides $120 million for the
investigations account. This is very important to the Army Corps of
Engineers. As a Federal agency that collects and studies basic
information pertaining to river and harbor, flood and storm damage
reduction, shore protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and
conducts detailed studies, plans, and specifications for river and
harbor, and flood and storm damage reduction, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers plays a critical role in building, maintaining, and expanding
the most critical of the Nation's infrastructure. We understand this
very well in my home State of Texas and the 18th Congressional
District.
Over the last 2 years, Mr. Chairman, 2 years around the exact same
time, we didn't have something called a hurricane. We had a heavy rain
in April-May of 2015 and April of 2016. 2016 had 20 inches of rain,
which was enormous. The damage was unbelievable.
Let me cite for you the words from the Greater Houston Partnership
that supports this amendment:
``Perhaps the most telling statistic of all: based on the 7,021 calls
the United Way of Greater Houston has received through its 2-1-1 line,
1,937 calls have been requests for `food replacement.'''
The amount of money that was lost was $1.9 billion in damage during
the weeks that followed the storm, which includes damage to homes,
cars, schools, parks, churches, roadways, and other important elements
of our infrastructure. This is what we faced in Houston, Texas.
I am recounting that and indicating that we believe this
investigations account is so very important. It will have the
opportunity, through a $3 million study, to deal with the bayous that
are located in the larger Houston/Harris County area: Sims Bayou,
Greens Bayou, Brays Bayou, White Oak Bayou, Hunting Bayou, and Clear
Creek.
Again, let me be very clear. As the Army Corps of Engineers works
through their work study program, this investigations account will be
enormously important.
We have also received a letter from Members of the United States
Congress supporting the study of all of the bayous in our community. We
want to ensure that the account is robust to provide that possible
opportunity.
Let me indicate to my colleagues again, the investigations account is
$120 million. We rise to support it. We also rise to acknowledge the
need for the utilization of those funds all over America, and certainly
in Houston/Harris County, Texas, and the surrounding counties, which
will help us, through a study, have a better pathway to how we fix
this, how do we not have this be Houston next year in 2017.
[[Page H3241]]
Let me thank my colleagues.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 2045
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am
not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Idaho is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, first, let me assure my colleague that I
understand her interest in addressing the flooding risks in her
district in Houston.
Besides the fact that the fiscal year 2017 Energy and Water bill
includes a total of $13.3 million above the budget request for flood
and storm damage reduction studies, the bill also allows for several
new studies to be initiated, and the Corps could choose the study of
interest to the gentlewoman as one of them.
Since this amendment does not change the funding levels within the
bill, I do not oppose the amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee has been absolutely
unrelenting in her representation of Houston and of the serious
situation that is faced there by the citizenry and leaders because of
the flooding. What a tremendous voice she is for the people whom she
represents. There isn't a time that I see her in the elevators or
walking around that she doesn't ask me about this bill and about
wanting to come down and amend it to make sure that it is sensitive to
the needs of Houston. I just wanted to put that on the record.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the distinguished gentleman and the
distinguished gentlewoman for their courtesies.
I want the chairman to know that I have acknowledged in my written
statement the funds that he has placed in the legislation.
Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment
as a very fine statement that contributes to this bill, to the people
of the Nation, but also to the people of Texas and Houston.
Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur
for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their commitment
to preserving America's great natural environment and resources so that
they can serve and be enjoyed by generations to come.
My amendment speaks to the need for robust funding for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers ``Investigations'' account by redirecting $3 million
for increases funding for post-disaster watershed assessment studies,
like the one that is being contemplated for the Houston/Harris County
metropolitan area.
Mr. Chair, I am pleased that H.R. 5055 provides $120 million for the
Investigations account.
As the federal agency that collects and studies basic information
pertaining to river and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore
protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and conducts detailed
studies, plans, and specifications for river and harbor, and flood and
storm damage reduction, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer plays a
critical role in the building, maintaining, and expanding the most
critical of the nation's infrastructure.
We understand this very well in my home state of Texas and the
Eighteenth Congressional District that I represent.
The Army Corps of Engineers has been working with the Harris County I
Flood Control District since 1937 to reduce the risk of flooding within
Harris County.
Current projects include 6 federal flood risk management projects:
1. Sims Bayou
2. Greens Bayou
3. Brays Bayou
4. White Oak Bayou
5. Hunting Bayou, and
6. Clear Creek
In addition to these ongoing projects, the Army Corps of Engineers
operates and maintains the Addicks and Barker (A&B) Detention Dams in
northwest Harris County.
Mr. Chair, I am pleased that the bill provides that the Secretary of
the Army may initiate up to six new study starts during fiscal year
2017, and that five of those studies are to consist studies where the
majority of the benefits are derived from flood and storm damage
reduction or from navigation transportation savings.
I am optimistic that one of those new study starts will be the
Houston Regional Watershed Assessment Flood Risk Management Feasibility
study.
Such a study is certainly needed given the frequency and severity of
historic-level flood events in recent years in and around the Houston
metropolitan area.
On April 15, 2016, an estimated 240 billion gallons of water fell in
the Houston area over a 12 hour period, which resulted in several areas
exceeding the 100 to 500 year flood event record.
The areas that experienced these historic rain falls were west of 1-
45, north of I-10, and Greens Bayou.
Additionally, an estimated 140 billion gallons of water fell over the
Cypress Creek, Spring Creek, and Addicks watershed in just 14 hours.
The purpose of the Houston Regional Watershed Assessment is to
identify risk reduction measures and optimize performance from a multi-
objective systems performance perspective of the regional network of
nested and intermingled watersheds, reservoir dams, flood flow
conveyance channels, storm water detention basins, and related Flood
Risk Management (FRM) infrastructure.
Special emphasis of the study, which covers 22 primary watersheds
within Harris County's 1,756 square miles, will be placed on extreme
flood events that exceed the system capacity resulting in impacts to
asset conditions/functions and loss of life.
Mr. Chair, during the May 2015 Houston flood, 3,015 homes were
flooded and 8 persons died; during the April 2016 Houston flood, 5,400
homes were flooded and 8 deaths recorded.
The economic damage caused by the 2015 Houston flood is estimated at
$3 billion; the 2016 estimate is being compiled and is estimated to be
well above $2 billion.
Mr. Chair, minimizing the risk of flood damage to the Houston and
Harris County metropolitan area, the nation's 4th largest, is a matter
of national significance because the region is one of the nation's
major technology, energy, finance, export and medical centers:
1. Port of Houston is the largest bulk port in the world;
2. Texas Medical Center is a world renowned teaching, research and
treatment center;
3. Houston is home to the largest conglomeration of foreign bank
representation and second only to New York City as home to the most
Fortune 500 companies; and
4. The Houston Watershed Assessment study area sits within major
Hurricane Evacuation arteries for the larger Galveston Gulf Coast
region.
I ask my colleagues to join me and support the Jackson Lee Amendment
for the Environmental Justice Program.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Greater Houston Partnership,
May 26, 2016.
Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Jackson Lee, as you know, on April 18,
2016, the Houston region experienced unprecedented rain and
flooding. According to an estimate prepared by BBVA Compass,
Houston experienced over $1.9 billion in damage during the
weeks that followed the storm, which includes damage to
homes, cars, schools, parks, churches, roadways and other
important elements of our infrastructure. For many, the
recent storms have affected every aspect of their quality of
life. Perhaps the most telling statistic of all: based on the
7,021 calls the United Way of Greater Houston has received
through its 2-1-1 line, 1,937 calls have been requests for
``food replacement.''
We greatly appreciate your leadership ensuring the Houston
area receives appropriate federal funding to help Houston
heal and make it more resilient in the future. To that end,
we are supportive of the requested $3 million for a study by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to investigate flood risk
management opportunities in the Houston metropolitan area by
analyzing the watersheds as a system of systems.
Sincerely,
Bob Harvey,
President and CEO.
____
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, April 26, 2016.
Hon. Hal Rogers,
Chairman, House Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
Hon. Nita Lowey,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Appropriations, Washington
DC.
Dear Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey: We write to
the Committee on Appropriations to allocate $3 million in the
FY 2016 supplemental funding for a 3 year study to be
conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers that will
investigate flood risk management opportunities in the
Houston metropolitan area by analyzing the watersheds as a
system of systems. This request for funding is based upon the
frequency and severity of flood events in and around the
Houston metropolitan area.
[[Page H3242]]
An estimated 240 billion gallons of water fell in the
Houston area over a 12 hour period, which resulted in several
areas exceeded the 100 to 500 year flood event record. The
records are based upon time period of rain fall, the location
of the rain fall, and the duration of the event over a
watershed. The areas that experienced these historic rain
falls were west of 1-45, north of I-10, and Greens Bayou.
Further, an estimated 140 billion gallons of water fell over
the Cypress Creek, Spring Creek, and Addicks watershed in
just 14 hours.
The study we seek funding will identify risk reduction
measures and optimize performance from a multi-objective
systems performance perspective of the regional network of
nested and intermingled watersheds, reservoir dams, flood
flow conveyance channels, storm water detention basins, and
related Flood Risk Management (FRM) infrastructure. Special
emphasis will be placed on extreme flood events that exceed
the system capacity resulting in impacts to asset conditions/
functions and loss of life.
The study area includes 22 primary watersheds within the
county's 1,756 square miles, each having unique flooding
problems. These include Spring-Creek, Little Cypress Creek,
Willow Creek, Cypress Creek, Addicks, Barker, Buffalo Bayou,
Clear Creek, Sims Bayou, Brays Bayou, White Oak Bayou, Greens
Bayou, Hunting Bayou, Vince Bayou, Armand Bayou, Carpenters
Bayou, San Jacinto River, Jackson Bayou, Luce Bayou, Cedar
Bayou, Spring Gully and Goose Creek, and San Jacinto and
Galveston Bay Estuaries. The flooding problems in the
watershed are frequent, widespread, and severe, with projects
to reduce flood risks in place that are valued at several
billion dollars. Recent historical flooding in the region was
documented in 1979, 1980, 1983, 1989, 1993, 1994, 1997, 2001
(Tropical Storm Allison), 2006, 2007, 2008 (Hurricane Ike),
2015 and was most recently demonstrated during the
significant flooding, widespread damages, and losses of life
during the 12 hour flood event from April 17-18, 2016.
The study will involve coordination with local, state and
federal stakeholders to comprehensively evaluate the life
safety, economic, and environmental impacts of potential
regional flooding, as well as land use that is managed by
local entities so future regional development is regulated to
avoid individual and cumulative impacts of the broad pattern
and rapid pace of development that contribute to poor FRM
systems performance.
Thank you for your careful consideration of this request is
appreciated. If you have questions contact Glenn Rushing
[email protected] in Congresswoman Jackson Lee's
office.
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18), Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15),
Filemon Vela (TX-34), Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30),
Marc Veasey (TX-33), Randy K. Weber (TX-14), Michael
McCaul (TX-10), Blake Farenthold (TX-27), Pete Olson
(TX-22), Gene Green (TX-29), Al Green (TX-09), Dan
Kildee (MI-05), Joaquin Castro (TX-20), Henry Cuellar
(TX-28), Members of Congress.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Mullin
Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. Beginning on November 8, 2016, through January
20, 2017, none of the funds made available by this Act may be
used to propose or finalize a regulatory action that is
likely to result in a rule that may have an annual effect on
the economy of $100,000,000 or more, as specified in section
3(f)(1) of Executive Order No. 12866 of September 30, 1993.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Oklahoma and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chair, I offer an amendment to protect Americans from
the costly regulations this administration or future administrations
may try to issue before the President leaves office. My amendment would
prohibit funds from being used to propose or to finalize any major
regulation from November 8 to January 20 of next year.
In the past, we have seen administrations issue politically motivated
regulations between the day of the election and the day the new
President takes office. In 2000 and in 2008, the number of midnight
regulations issued was nearly double the average of non-midnight
regulations. We expect this administration to maintain this practice,
and with the nature of the regulations we have seen from the Federal
agencies over the past 8 years, this amendment is more important than
ever.
I would like to briefly thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Walberg) for leading on this issue in the House.
Let's hold the executive branch in check in its remaining days so
that families and businesses across the country don't fall victim to
unnecessary, burdensome regulations.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, this amendment is actually costly,
inefficient, and it rolls back progress in a department that has really
been experiencing tremendous leadership under Dr. Ernest Moniz.
The Mullin amendment would stop the Department of Energy from
proposing or finalizing any rule that may cost more than $100 million
annually, the Congressman says. Mr. Chair, this is just another attempt
to ensure that agencies are unable to enact important rules and
regulations that protect consumers and benefit our Nation.
What if that had been done back when the Clean Water Act was first
passed?
We would have had communities across this country pumping sewage into
their kitchens.
At the DOE alone, the Mullin amendment would stall 14 rules that are
currently in progress, a third of which are consensus agreements that
the DOE has worked with industry to finalize. The amendment would also
waste valuable manpower and resources for both the DOE and the
industries involved in these consensus agreements.
This makes no sense. We need to move on with the business of America.
Taking a myopic view of our Nation's regulatory practices is nothing
new for this majority. Time and again, we have seen appropriation
riders and authorizing legislation that only looks at the costs that
are associated with agency rules and that completely ignores the
associated benefits to our country. This amendment is no different.
These proposals overlook the extensive review process that already
exists for rules. For example, every new rule is already scrutinized up
and down by numerous Federal agencies as well as by key stakeholders
and the public through very, very extensive input that agencies seek.
Let me explain.
For economically significant rules, an agency must provide the Office
of Management and Budget with an assessment and, to the extent
possible, with a quantification of the benefits as well as of the costs
of a proposed rule. In accordance with Executive Order No. 12866, the
agency has to justify the costs associated with the rule, and these
costs are justified with benefits, which is something the Mullin
amendment appears to think doesn't exist, but that is simply false.
For example, in his 2015 analysis of the estimated costs and benefits
of significant Federal regulations, the OMB estimated that, over the
last decade, the benefits of these rules outweighed the economic costs
by nine to one--and that is OMB. These benefits have translated into
real money for the American taxpayer.
As a result of standards established by the DOE, a typical American
household already saves over $200 a year on its energy bill. That comes
in different forms. Whether it is a more efficient refrigerator or
whether it is light bulbs or whether it is insulation, we all know the
benefits.
Besides economic benefits, these standards provide benefits to our
environment and the well-being of our communities. The 40 new or
updated standards issued by the DOE will assist in reducing carbon
emissions by over 2 million metric tons through 2030, and will help
this Nation curb climate change, which we all know threatens the health
of our environment as well as of our communities.
Republicans should stop trying to undermine the rulemaking process.
They should stop ignoring the real-world benefits of these rules to
society and the progress that we are making as a country.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chair, with respect to my colleague, I do want to
point out that the Clean Water Act had absolutely nothing to do with
pumping sewage into someone's house. It had to do
[[Page H3243]]
with the direct discharge into navigable waters, like in Mississippi.
It has nothing to do with what we are talking about or with what the
gentlewoman brought up.
Second of all, when the gentlewoman starts talking about its being
costly, the last time I checked, the cost of living has skyrocketed due
to the regulations, due to the amount of inflation that has been
brought on by regulations and from the costs of doing business. As a
businessowner, I well understand the costs.
Through rulemaking, the legislators lose the ability to legislate,
which is what our Founding Fathers had decided to do when they set up
the legislative branch. We surrender that when we allow the executive
branch to go crazy towards the end of the year to clean the slate of
their last year in office. Let me give you some numbers.
Under the Carter administration--this is how far I am going to go
back, and don't think that this is a Republican thing or a Democrat
thing. During the midnight hours of regulations, which is considered to
be November 8 to January 20, the Carter administration issued 24,531
pages of midnight regulations. The Reagan administration issued 14,584
pages of midnight regulations. The Bush administration issued 20,148
pages of midnight regulations. The Clinton administration issued 26,542
pages of midnight regulations. Mind you, this is between the election
in November until he leaves office in January. Bush: 21,251 pages.
All I am saying is let's be the legislators our Founding Fathers set
up, and let's not allow the executive branch to allow rulemaking to go
on and bypass the legislative branch.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I urge Members to oppose the gentleman's
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote for this
amendment so we can hold this administration accountable.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:
Sec. __. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the amount made available for ``Corps of
Engineers-Civil--Construction'', and increasing the amount
made available for the same account, by $100,000,000.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentlewoman
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, my previous amendment dealt with the
Investigations account, which is the predecessor to the Construction
account.
Before I begin the discussion, let me say that I took to the floor of
the House in May, after the floods occurred in Houston, and had a
moment of silence for the eight people who had died in those floods.
Mr. Chair, this was not a hurricane, and it was not a tornado. It was
hard rain that caused individuals in their cars to drown. It was very,
very tragic. Some going to work, some nurses, some students who were
drowning in their cars. This is what it looked like in my district. It
looked the same way in 2015 and again in 2016.
The Construction account, for which I want to thank Ms. Kaptur and
Mr. Simpson, has $1.94 billion. I believe the Construction account is
very important to Members across the Nation. Certainly, it is important
to the Houston-Harris County region, with other counties around. As the
Federal agency that collects and studies basic information pertaining
to river and harbor flood and storm damage and shore protection, this
is important construction money that will be vital to preventing this
kind of catastrophe--first a study, then the construction. The areas
that may be impacted by the Army Corps' resources include Sims Bayou,
Greens Bayou, Brays Bayou, White Oak Bayou, Hunting Bayou, and Clear
Creek Bayou. These are the areas that spilt over and caused the
enormous damage.
On April 15, 2016, an estimated 240 billion gallons of water fell in
the Houston area over a 12-hour period, which resulted in several areas
exceeding the 100- to 500-year flood event. That is why these
construction dollars are so important. The areas that experienced these
historic rainfalls were west of I-45, north of I-10 and Greens Bayou--
my congressional district, among others.
Finally, during the May 2015 Houston flood, 3,000 homes were flooded,
and eight people died. During the April 2016 Houston flood, 5,400 homes
were flooded, and, again, eight deaths were recorded. As for my
previous numbers, April 15, 2016, was when they had this constant
rain--240 billion gallons. The economic damage caused by the 2015
Houston flood is estimated at $3 billion.
This Construction account is so very important. I ask my colleagues
to support the Jackson Lee amendment, which is the broader view of how
these dollars can be utilized to save lives, in particular in regions
that I happen to live in, which is the Houston-Harris County area.
Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur
for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their commitment
to preserving America's great natural environment and resources so that
they can serve and be enjoyed by generations to come.
My amendment speaks to the need for robust funding for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers ``Construction'' account by redirecting $100 million
for increased funding for critical construction projects, like those
current and future projects proposed for the Houston/Harris County
metropolitan area.
Mr. Chair, I am pleased that H.R. 5055 provides $1.945 billion for
the Construction account.
As the federal agency that collects and studies basic information
pertaining to river and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore
protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and conducts detailed
studies, plans, and specifications for river and harbor, and flood and
storm damage reduction, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plays a
critical role in building, maintaining, and expanding the most critical
of the nation's infrastructure.
We understand this very well in my home state of Texas and the
Eighteenth Congressional District that I represent.
The Army Corps of Engineers has been working with the Harris County
Flood Control District since 1937 to reduce the risk of flooding within
Harris County.
Current projects include 6 federal flood risk management projects:
1. Sims Bayou
2. Greens Bayou
3. Brays Bayou
4. White Oak Bayou
5. Hunting Bayou, and
6. Clear Creek
In addition to these ongoing projects, the Army Corps of Engineers
operates and maintains the Addicks and Barker (A&B) Detention Dams in
northwest Harris County.
Such a study is certainly needed given the frequency and severity of
historic-level flood events in recent years in and around the Houston
metropolitan area. It is clear that much more needs to be done to
minimize the vulnerability of the nation's 4th largest metropolitan
area and economic engine from the flood damage.
On April 15, 2016, an estimated 240 billion gallons of water fell in
the Houston area over a 12 hour period, which resulted in several areas
exceeding the 100 to 500 year flood event record.
The areas that experienced these historic rainfalls were west of 1-
45, north of I 10, and Greens Bayou.
Additionally, an estimated 140 billion gallons of water fell over the
Cypress Creek, Spring Creek, and Addicks watershed in just 14 hours.
Mr. Chair, during the May 2015 Houston flood, 3,015 homes were
flooded and 8 persons died; during the April 2016 Houston flood, 5,400
homes were flooded and 8 deaths recorded.
The economic damage caused by the 2015 Houston flood is estimated at
$3 billion; the 2016 estimate is being compiled and is estimated to be
well above $2 billion.
Mr. Chair, minimizing the risk of flood damage to the Houston and
Harris County metropolitan area, the nation's 4th largest, is a matter
of national significance because the region is one of the nation's
major technology, energy, finance, export and medical centers:
1. Port of Houston is the largest bulk port in the world;
[[Page H3244]]
2. Texas Medical Center is a world renowned teaching, research and
treatment center;
3. Houston is home to the largest conglomeration of foreign bank
representation and second only to New York City as home to the most
Fortune 500 companies; and
4. The Houston Watershed Assessment study area sits within major
Hurricane Evacuation arteries for the larger Galveston Gulf Coast
region.
I ask my colleagues to join me and support the Jackson Lee Amendment.
I thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for their work in
shepherding this bill to the floor.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 2100
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I
do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Idaho is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, first let me assure my colleague that I
understand the issue prompting this amendment. Seeing our communities
flood and our constituents struggling to deal with the aftermath of
flooding, especially when there are projects already planned to prevent
such flooding, can be extremely frustrating.
That is why the energy and water bills over the past several years
have included significant funding above the budget request for the
Corps of Engineers flood and storm damage reduction mission.
In fact, the fiscal year 2017 energy and water bill more than doubles
the budget requested from the administration for construction of these
projects. It is an increase of 113 percent, or $457 million.
More specifically, the bill includes $392 million in additional
funding, for which the Houston area projects could compete. That amount
is $82 million more than the amount provided in the fiscal year 2016
act.
Additionally, the committee report directs the Corps to consider the
severity of risks of flooding or the frequency with which an area has
experienced flooding when deciding how to allocate the additional
funding provided. The bill provides strong support for addressing flood
risks.
Because the amendment does not actually change funding levels and,
so, does not upset the balance of priorities within this bill, I will
not oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, again I thank Mr. Simpson for recounting
that information and Ms. Kaptur for the leadership that she has given
and the understanding of the plight that we are in.
Flood control is critical to dams and harbors, and it is most
critical of all as infrastructure. That is what the construction
funding will do. We understand that this now will give us the
opportunity for long overdue projects that are dealing with major
flooding.
The previous amendment giving us a work plan through the Army Corps
of Engineers will again be instructive and helpful to saving lives and
reducing the enormity of loss and the enormity of damage that has been
caused to these areas.
I ask for support of the Jackson Lee amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to carry out the memorandum from the White House
Counsel's Office to all Executive Department and Agency
General Counsels entitled ``Reminder Regarding Document
Requests'' dated April 15, 2009.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment which will prevent
the administration from causing unnecessary delays and blocking
important information from being released to the general public under
the Freedom of Information Act.
In 2009, the White House released a secret memo to every executive
department and agency urging them to consult with counsel at the White
House before releasing any documents or fulfilling any requests that
may involve ``White House equities.''
Last year the Department of Energy, Office of Inspector General,
released a special report titled The Department of Energy's Freedom of
Information Act Process.
In this report, Federal investigators determined that, in numerous
cases where the Department of Energy's general counsel had provided
their FOIA response to the White House, ``the FOIA case file was
incomplete and did not contain all of the documents related to the FOIA
response.''
What does that mean, Mr. Chairman? As the report tells us, incomplete
documentation in these cases prevents us from being absolutely certain
we know what changes or redactions were made when the White House
reviewed the documents. Further, we don't know how many records
requests submitted to the Department of Energy were blocked by the
White House.
For an administration that once sought to be the most transparent
administration in our Nation's history, actions such as these do
nothing to inspire trust or confidence amongst the American people.
It took a FOIA request in 2014 to reveal that, out of more than 450
Department of the Interior inspector general requests, the Obama
administration only allowed the IG to release three reports.
While that stat is troubling, figures released by the Associated
Press this year through their annual FOIA review are even more
disturbing. The annual review covers Freedom of Information Act
requests made to more than 100 different Federal agencies.
Shockingly, the AP reported in March that, in 2015, the American
people received censored responses or nothing in 77 percent of all FOIA
requests, redacted releases or nothing in response to nearly 600,000
Freedom of Information Act requests. Absolutely shameful.
Daniel Epstein, executive director of the nonprofit government
watchdog Cause of Action, said it best when he stated: ``Information
seekers, whether they're individuals, members of the news media or
public interest groups, should be extremely troubled by the fact that
this White House has been interfering with how Federal agencies comply
with the Freedom of Information Act.''
This amendment is supported by Americans for Tax Reform; the Council
for Citizens Against Government Waste; the National Taxpayers Union;
the Taxpayers Protection Alliance; Concerned Citizens for America,
Arizona Chapter; the Gila County Cattle Growers Association; and the
Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative.
Agency officials that want to comply with the law and respond to
Freedom of Information Act requests in a timely manner should not be
blocked from doing so because of an arbitrary memo from the White
House.
The Department of Energy IG and numerous government watchdog groups
claim the memo that my amendment defunds is limiting public access
under the Freedom of Information Act.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and defund this
unlawful memo.
I also want to thank the distinguished chair and ranking member for
their work on this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poe of Texas). The gentlewoman from Ohio is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I am opposed to the amendment as the provision
interferes with the standard practice spanning administrations of both
parties and raises potential constitutional concerns.
It is standard practice for agencies processing Freedom of
Information Act
[[Page H3245]]
requests to confer with other executive branch entities with equities,
including the White House, prior to releasing documents. Agencies refer
documents to the White House just as they refer documents to other
agencies.
The practice of agencies consulting with the White House prior to
Freedom of Information Act requests regarding White House equities is
longstanding, spanning administrations of both parties. The Reagan
administration issued a memorandum in 1988 directing such consultation.
Finally, the provision could interfere with the President's ability
to protect privileged information and thereby could raise
constitutional concerns in some applications. This is just one more
instance of the majority prioritizing message amendments rather than
getting on with the hard work of legislating.
I oppose this amendment. It has no place on an appropriations bill
and should be defeated.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, once again I would like to just actually
reiterate these responses. Seventy-seven percent of all FOIA requests
were not complied with. Redacted releases are nothing in response to
nearly 600,000 Freedom of Information Act requests. Once again, smoke
and mirrors. When are we going to get this?
I would ask everybody to vote for this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Engel
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Department of Energy, the Department of the
Interior, or any other Federal agency to lease or purchase
new light duty vehicles for any executive fleet, or for an
agency's fleet inventory, except in accordance with
Presidential Memorandum--Federal Fleet Performance, dated May
24, 2011.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from New York and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, on May 24, 2011, President Obama issued a
memorandum on Federal fleet performance that required all new light-
duty vehicles in the Federal fleet to be alternative fuel vehicles,
such as hybrid, electric, natural gas, or biofuel.
My amendment echoes the President's memorandum by prohibiting funds
in this act from being used to lease or purchase new light-duty
vehicles unless that purchase is made in accord with the President's
memorandum.
I have submitted identical language to 20 different appropriations
bills over the past few years, and every time it has been accepted by
both the majority and the minority. I hope my amendment will receive
similar support today.
Global oil prices are down. We no longer pay $147 per barrel. But
spikes in oil prices would still have profound repercussions for our
economy. The primary reason is that our cars and trucks run only on
petroleum. We can change that with alternative technologies that exist
today.
The Federal Government operates the largest fleet of light-duty
vehicles in America, over 640,000 vehicles. More than 55,000 of those
vehicles are within the jurisdiction of this bill, being used by the
Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, and the Army
Corps of Engineers.
When I was in Brazil a few years ago, I saw how they diversified
their fuel use. People there can drive to a gasoline station and choose
whether to fill their vehicle with gasoline or ethanol. They make their
choice based on cost or whatever criteria they deem important.
I want the same choice for American consumers. That is why I am
proposing a bill in Congress, as I have done many times in the past,
which will provide for cars built in America to be able to run on a
fuel instead of or in addition to gasoline. It is less than $100 per
vehicle. That is a separate issue, but I raise it because it is in
conjunction with what I am proposing here. If they can do it in Brazil,
we can do it here.
So, in conclusion, expanding the role these alternative technologies
play in our transportation economy will help break the leverage that
foreign government-controlled oil companies hold over Americans. It
will increase our Nation's domestic security and protect consumers.
Again, I have submitted this in different appropriations bills
through the years, and it has always passed unanimously by both
Democrats and Republicans. I hope it will be the same.
I ask that my colleagues support the Engel amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Department of Energy for the 21st Century
Clean Transportation Plan.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment which will help
prevent an unnecessary tax increase on hardworking families and send a
strong message from the House of Representatives that we oppose the
administration's new mandatory climate change transportation program.
In February, the Obama administration proposed creating a new program
nicknamed the 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan that aims to spend
$320 billion over the next 10 years and divert precious taxpayer funds
to self-driving cars, high-speed rail, and mass transit in the name of
preserving the environment.
In fact, $20 billion of the estimated $32 billion each year for this
proposed program won't go to roads or bridges, but instead will be
squandered on inefficient programs that require significant taxpayer
subsidies.
To pay for the majority of this unlawful $320 billion program, the
Obama administration has proposed a $10.25 tax on every barrel of oil.
This new tax on crude oil and petroleum products will inevitably be
passed on to hardworking Americans that can't afford another new tax
increase from the Obama administration.
In fact, the $10.25 per-barrel tax is estimated to add an additional
25 cents to the cost of every gallon of gasoline. Millions of energy-
related jobs will be put at risk and low-income families will be forced
to bear larger financial burdens as a result of this unnecessary tax
that is being proposed to pay for Obama's flawed climate change
transportation program.
In the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2017 budget, the agency
requested $1.3 billion for this year and $11.3 billion over the next 10
years to fund the administration's 21st Century Clean Transportation
Plan.
My amendment rejects the new $10.25 tax on every barrel of crude oil
and prohibits funding in this bill for the administration's flawed
climate change transportation program.
This amendment is supported by Americans for Limited Government;
Americans for Tax Reform; the Council for Citizens Against Government
Waste; the National Taxpayer Union; the Taxpayers Protection Alliance;
Concerned Citizens for America, Arizona Chapter; the Gila County Cattle
Growers Association; and the Sulphur Springs Valley Electric
Cooperative.
I thank the distinguished chair and ranking member for their work on
this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 2115
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
[[Page H3246]]
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has hit a very soft spot with
me here, the automotive and trucking industries, so vital to my area of
the country and so vital to the whole economy.
Actually, the manufacturing part of America, as it recovers, is
lifting us to new heights with economic growth. I rise in strong
opposition to this amendment because, again, it takes America backward,
not forward.
This amendment seeks to prohibit funding for the Department of
Energy's 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan, which is a fantastic
initiative which would set America on a long-term path to achieving our
economic and climate goals.
I am telling you, when you see some of what is being done with new
materials science, with new composites, with metals and plastics
technologies, I can go from Ford's Ecoboost engine, to Chrysler's new
vehicles, to Dana's new axle plant being built in the Midwest, to
General Motors and the wonderful work that they are doing at Brook
Park. One plant after another, you can see the results of innovation
where the Department of Energy, working with the private sector, is
bringing the future to us every day.
The 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan would scale up clean
transportation research and development, critical for the clean
transportation systems of the future. Did you know that in the internal
combustion engine we still do not understand how fuel actually burns?
The Department of Energy is doing wonderful research to try to help
important companies like Cummins Engine figure out how fuel is actually
used in those engines to make them more efficient.
We have to talk about reducing the cost of batteries and developing
low-carbon fuels such as biofuels. We don't have all the answers.
Industry alone doesn't do it alone because some of this is basic
research.
We also are involved in funding the development of regional low-
carbon fueling infrastructure, including charging stations for electric
vehicles for those people who choose to purchase those and pumps for
hydrogen fuel cell cars. Yes, we are inventing the future. You know
what? It feels pretty good.
Finally, it would investigate future mobility and intelligent
transportation systems like vehicle connectivity and self-driving cars.
Last week the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association was up here,
and I went over to the northeastern part of the city, drove a Peterbilt
truck with Bendix technology and with the automatic braking systems
that are just incredible in a vehicle that has a cubic ratio of about
480 cubic inches to that engine. What an incredible piece of
engineering that is.
The Department of Energy is always driving us into the future, and
that is where we need to go. Our Nation has always been a leader on
innovation. To sustain this pace, we must continue to invest in
programs like the 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan, which drives
our economy forward.
The automotive industry and all the related suppliers, including
trucks, represent about one out of every seven jobs in this country. We
are in stiff competition with markets that are closed, with markets
that try to target our industry and snuff them out of existence. I
think that we have to do everything possible.
I co-chair the House Automotive Caucus here along with Congressman
Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania, and I would have to say that the
gentleman's amendment does not take us forward, but backward.
I would urge my colleagues to oppose it very, very strongly.
Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments.
Getting back to the amendment, I would remind the gentleman offering
the amendment, A, that this is not the tax committee, that any $10 tax
on a barrel of oil would come out of the Ways and Means Committee. I
don't see that coming out of the Ways and Means Committee, but it is
not included in this bill.
The other thing that I would remind the gentleman of is there is no--
I repeat no--funding in this bill for the President's 21st Century
Clean Transportation Plan, the mandatory funding that was proposed by
the administration. There is no funding in this bill for it; so, this
amendment does nothing. It strikes no funding because there is no
funding in this bill.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I want to remind everybody that $20 billion
of the estimated $32 billion each year for this proposed program won't
go to roads or bridges, but to these inefficient programs.
I guess we are going to the future. We are $19 trillion in debt and
soon to be $22 trillion and $23 trillion and $24 trillion in debt. Yes,
I do understand, in the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2017 budget,
the agency requested $1.3 billion for this year and $11.3 billion over
the next 10 years to fund the administration's 21st Century Clean
Transportation Plan.
Now, while the budget request this year happened to be mandatory,
next year it could be discretionary. The House has not taken action to
date to reject the $10.25 tax on every barrel of oil and to this
fundamentally flawed program.
My amendment rejects that tax increase and the Obama administration's
new climate change transportation program.
I urge adoption of this commonsense amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanford
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to provide a loan under section 136 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17013).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from South Carolina and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I think what I have before all of us is a
commonsense amendment. It simply says that the advanced technology
vehicle manufacturing loan program will continue to exist, but there
can be no additional loans.
The reason that I do so is, when I came and offered this amendment
last year, I had a cutting amendment last year, but what was explained
to me was that, if you cut the program, then you wouldn't have money to
administer the existing loans that were out there.
So, as a result, I have altered this amendment so that it again
leaves in place the appropriation, which is more than $5 million, so
that you could continue to administer the existing loans that are in
place, but there would be no additional loans.
Now, why do I think that that is important? I think it is important
for a couple different reasons. I think, from a Democratic standpoint,
what we would say is that we all believe in equality and that there
shouldn't be subsidized loans for major corporations, global
corporations, here in the United States while your cousin's pizza
business is struggling or your friend's landscaping business is
struggling. They don't get subsidized loans. Why should a big business?
So, from a Democratic standpoint, I think we would hold that belief.
From a Republican standpoint, we would say we need to watch out for the
taxpayer.
If you look at the default rate on these loans, unfortunately, it has
been relatively high. You would say: I don't know if government is in
the best spot to be making these kinds of loans to businesses.
I think that ultimately is the role not of government, but of
business. Let them do what they do. I think from both vantage points it
is something that makes sense.
I would add just a couple of additional thoughts and then I would
yield.
I would say, one, there have been only five loans made since 2007.
This is
[[Page H3247]]
not a huge program. This is a very limited program.
Two, two out of the five loans made since 2007, in fact, have
defaulted. That is a 40 percent default rate. I don't think that that
is the kind of thing that we would like to see in government.
There have been no loans made since 2011. And then the GAO came in
March of 2013 and said the costs outweigh the benefits of this program.
They followed that up with another GAO report in March of 2014 and
said: We recommend shutting down the program unless the Department of
Energy can show real demand for the loans.
Then they followed that up with a final GAO report in March of this
year, and it said that there hadn't been a sufficient level of demand.
As a consequence, their words were this: Determining whether funds
will be used is important, particularly in a constrained fiscal
environment. This Congress should rescind unused appropriations or
direct them to other government priorities.
I think the simple issue with this loan program is that there could
be other priorities where you take that $4 billion of loan authority
and let other parts of government use it or turn it back to the private
sector and use that money much more effectively.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I
am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Idaho is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to state that I don't want
people who may be listening to this, other Members who may be listening
to this, to get the impression that we are putting money in here for
the Loan Guarantee Program.
There is no money in the underlying bill for the ATVM additional new
loans. The only money in there is to administer the existing loans.
I understand what the gentleman is saying. I agree with the
gentleman. I just don't want Members to think that we are putting money
into the program when we are not.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I very, very much appreciate what the
chairman pointed out. Again, that is why I think it is so important to
simply codify this notion that we won't go forward.
The money is in there for administration of existing loans. It is
just saying that we are not going to go out and administer new ones,
given the other needs that exist within both the public and the private
sector for funds like this.
Mr. Chair, I will reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment. Any proposal to sunset the Advanced Technology Vehicle
Manufacturing Program or limit the pipeline of projects that may be
eligible is shortsighted and should be rejected.
Why? First, the program is a critical one for the American automotive
industry and has supported its resurgence. They have issued more than
$8 billion in loans to date, and these loans have resulted in the
manufacture of more than 4 million fuel-efficient advanced vehicles,
supported approximately 35,000 direct jobs across eight States,
including California, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Kentucky, New
York, and Tennessee, and saved more than 1.35 million gallons of
gasoline. Not too bad.
The success has been achieved with losses of only approximately 2
percent of a total portfolio of $32 billion for the loan programs
office. That is a lower percent than most banks have on the loans that
they make. What we are talking about here is higher level research,
higher level investments in technologies that are yet being born.
Why else should we reject this amendment? Instituting an arbitrary
and immediate deadline for applications to this program would result in
the Department losing billions of dollars in loan authority itself. The
program currently has billions in loan requests in the pipeline from
both automakers and component manufacturers for projects in 10 States.
Thirdly, capping the program of eligible projects will hinder the
Department's ability to issue new loans to support domestic
manufacturing of advanced vehicles especially at a time when we are
asking the industry to meet rising fuel economy standards.
It is really amazing what has been done just in the last 15 years.
When we look at some of the vehicles coming out now, we are seeing
vehicles like the Cruze, 33 miles a gallon. Some are going up to 40,
some to 50. It is really amazing what has happened, the transformation
that is happening in this industry that we are living through directly.
I oppose the gentleman's amendment because I really do believe
innovation has always led us into the future. This is the kind of
program that can provide the capital necessary to expand our domestic
manufacturing when so much of it is being offshored. It is a major
issue in the Presidential election this year in both political parties,
how we are going to restore manufacturing in this country.
We have to do it through innovation. We have to do it in sectors that
are muscle sectors like the automotive and truck industry that are so
vital and produce real wealth for this country, not imported wealth,
but wealth that we produce ourselves through all the componentry, the
thousands and thousands and thousands of components that go into these
vehicles, and the fuel efficiency that makes them competitive in the
marketplace of today.
I oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I would agree with much of what my colleague
said just a moment ago. I think that innovation is, indeed, the gateway
to the future, but I would argue that great innovation has been led by
the private sector, not by loan guarantees to major corporations.
You think about Steve Jobs and his partner opening up that business
in basically what amounted to the basement of a house. That is not what
we are talking about here. I think some of the great innovations will
come from small businesses that don't see this kind of financial
advantage.
Two, I would make the point that this is not about just helping
American companies. One of the largest loans out there was to Mazda,
which is not an American company. Ford is--that is one of the other big
loans, but Mazda is not.
I would put this in the larger classification of Reagan's words: The
closest thing to eternal life is a government program.
This is one of those government programs that has not proved
successful, and I think it is important that we wean government
programs. We prune them where they don't make sense.
Forty percent is, in fact, the default rate. If you add up all the
numbers, it amounts to 2 percent. But most people when they think of
default and what the American Bankers Association would think of when
they think of default is divided by the number of loans out there, what
percent defaulted, and that number happens to be a real 40 percent, not
2 percent of the aggregate amount of the total loans out there.
{time} 2130
Finally, I would again go back to this simple point. I agree with my
colleagues about what they have said on the need for innovation and for
reform, but I don't think it will be led through a loan program that
has seen any number of defaults in the process. That money could be
redeployed to education and a whole host of our primary needs in this
country.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Buck
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to research, draft,
[[Page H3248]]
propose, or finalize the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that
was published by the Department of Energy on December 19,
2014, at 79 Fed. Reg. 76,142, titled, ``Energy Conservation
Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential
Dishwashers'', the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that was
published by the Department of Energy on August 13, 2015, at
80 Fed. Reg. 48,624, titled, ``Energy Conservation Program:
Energy Conservation Standards for Ceiling Fan Light Kits'',
or the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that was published by
the Department of Energy on August 19, 2015, at 80 Fed. Reg.
50,462, titled, ``Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for Refrigerated Bottled or Canned
Vending Machines''.
Mr. BUCK (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to
waive the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Colorado?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Colorado and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment returns choice to consumers
and keeps the price of products affordable.
The Department of Energy's energy conservation program issues
efficiency regulations for everyday appliances like dishwashers and
vending machines. The rules are based on a cost-benefit analysis, but
the analysis is vague and skewed to the desired outcome. Rather than
improving the lives of consumers, these mandates drive up the cost of
appliances.
To address the rising costs and the crackdown on consumer choice,
this amendment prohibits energy mandates on residential dishwashers,
ceiling fan light kits, and vending machines. Individuals should have a
choice of whether or not to buy these appliances.
As consumer demand for efficiency increases, the market will find a
way to produce appliances that save more energy. This amendment stops
the administration from implementing their radical green energy agenda
on the backs of American families.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr.
Simpson).
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. My colleague's
amendment would prohibit the use of funds at the Department of Energy
to propose efficiency standards for ceiling fan light kits, residential
dishwashers, and vending machines.
Mr. Chairman, the law in question allows for executive overreach by
prescribing what industry can and cannot sell and what consumers can
and cannot buy. Industry has legitimate concerns about the government
forcing a wholesale change to a market for something as common as a
dishwasher. This amendment reins back this overreaching regulation, and
I support this amendment and recommend my colleagues vote ``yes.''
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I oppose the gentleman's amendment. It is just
one more instance where the majority is saddling the consumer with
ever-increasing energy bills. We know how the standards have really
saved consumers money over the years. I have some figures here that are
very interesting.
A typical household saves about $216 a year off their energy bills
now as a result of renewed standards. As people replace their
appliances with newer models, they can expect to save more than $453
annually by 2030. The cumulative utility bill savings to consumers from
all standards in effect since 1987 are estimated to be nearly $1
trillion by 2020 and grow to nearly $2 trillion through 2030.
Invention does matter. And the application of that to our daily life
really matters. The efficiency standards have spurred innovation that
dramatically expanded options for consumers. It is time to choose
common sense over rigid ideology, and it is time to listen to the
manufacturing companies, consumer groups, and efficiency advocates, who
all agree this rider is harmful.
I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the Buck amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. Each amount made available by this Act is hereby
reduced by 1 percent.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentlewoman
from Tennessee and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I know that the committee has worked
hard to get a bill that is going to come into the numbers.
Unfortunately, I disagree with the $1.070 trillion number that is in
the Bipartisan Budget Act. I like the Budget Control Act's number of
$1.040 trillion.
A $30 billion difference doesn't sounds like a lot when you are
talking about trillions of dollars, but I tell you, to my constituents,
with $19 trillion debt, it does make a difference.
The funding level of this bill is $37.444 billion. I will be offering
an amendment, which I offer every year to our spending bills, to cut 1
percent across the board. That would yield us $374 million in budget
authority savings, and outlays savings of $222 million.
I know it doesn't sound like a lot, but it is simply taking one penny
out of every dollar that is appropriated. And that, quite frankly, is
the type of scrimping and saving that our constituents and American
families are having to do all across this country in order to make
their budgets work.
I am fully aware of the strong opposition that many have to making
those 1 percent across-the-board cuts. As I have offered these
amendments, many times I am told that cuts of this magnitude go far too
deep, that they would be very damaging to our Nation's security, but I
kind of agree with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mullin when he said
the greatest threat to our Nation's security is our Nation's debt.
I think we ought not to be putting future generations at risk, and we
should be working toward reducing what our Federal outlays are every
single year and working toward balancing the budget. It means yes, we
have to go in and cut that penny out of a dollar and save it for our
children and our grandchildren to get this Nation back on the right
track.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman for her
consistency. She always has these amendments to cut 1 percent across
the board out of the appropriations bills, and I appreciate her
consistent work to protect the taxpayer dollars, but this is an
approach that, frankly, I can't support.
While the President may have proposed a budget that exceeds this
bill, the increases were paid for with proposals and gimmicks that
would never be enacted. This bill makes the tough choices within an
allocation that adheres to current law.
You may not agree with current law, but it is the current law, and
that is what we had to go with. Since there wasn't a budget resolution
passed, what we ended up with is current law; and that is the
allocation that we have, and that is what we stayed within.
I don't think the Appropriations Committee gets enough credit over
the last several years for the work we have been doing in reducing
Federal spending.
If you look at the total Federal budget and the amount of
discretionary spending and mandatory spending, at one time it was about
two-thirds discretionary spending and one-third mandatory spending 30
or 40 years ago. Then, about 5 years ago, it was one-third
discretionary spending and two-thirds mandatory spending. That is
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security entitlements.
[[Page H3249]]
Since we have taken control the last 5 years, that one-third of the
budget that is discretionary spending is about 28 percent now. As it
continues to go down in relationship to the entire budget, we cut
discretionary spending more and more.
We have made difficult tradeoffs that had to be made in this bill to
balance it with our needs. We prioritize funding for critical
infrastructure and for our national defense. These tradeoffs were
carefully weighed for their respective impacts and are responsible. Yet
the gentlewoman's amendment imposes an across-the-board cut on every
one of these programs, even the national defense programs, which are
vitally important.
This makes no distinction between where we need to be spending to
invest in our infrastructure, promote jobs, and meet our national
security needs, like meeting the Ohio-class submarine dates so that we
can get the Ohio-class submarine done, so that we can do the
refurbishment of our nuclear stockpile, so that we can do the other
things that are important on the national defense side of this budget.
It makes no distinction between those and where we need to limit
spending to meet our deficit reduction goals. Therefore, I must oppose
this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, indeed, the Appropriations Committee
does deserve some credit. But also, passing the Budget Control Act with
the 2 percent across-the-board spending reduction in discretionary
spending deserves some credit also, because it shows the effectiveness
of what those cuts can do.
Governors use this, Democratic and Republican alike. They do it
because their States have balanced budget amendments, and they can't
crank up the printing press and print the money.
I would encourage my colleagues to take a step toward fiscal
responsibility, get inside and cut one more penny out of a dollar. We
can do that on every appropriation that we have.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Tennessee
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith of Missouri
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Army Corps of Engineers to implement,
administer, or enforce the last four words of subparagraph
(B) of section 1341(a)(1) of title 31, United States Code,
with respect to crevassing of levees under the Birds Point-
New Madrid Floodway Operations Plan.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Missouri and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, in May of 2011, under the strong
objections of numerous folks in southeast Missouri and my predecessor,
the Army Corps of Engineers activated the Birds Point levee, which is
the second time since 1937. This resulted in an extensive amount of
damage: over $156 million worth of damage and flooding of over 130,000
acres. In that place, homes and communities were completely destroyed
and crops were lost.
After the water receded, many residents simply chose not to ever
return home and back to their community. These are individuals that
lived there for numerous generations. One community, a small town
called Pinhook in Mississippi County, right in the boot heel, that no
longer exists after the activation of that floodway.
The amendment that I have today is quite simple, Mr. Chairman. It
says, when an activation of the Birds Point levee occurs, we must build
it back. Not anything else other than if there is an activation, the
government must build it back. If they destroy a community by
activating and blowing up a levee, they must build it back. The
amendment is extremely simple.
Had families in the Birds Point floodway had the assurance that a
plan was already in place, perhaps they would have chosen to return
back to their home for generations.
When river levels rise, safety is always the number one concern. But
the Corps of Engineers should never, under any circumstances, breach a
levee without already having in place plans for its restoration,
allowing for residents to return to their lives as soon as possible.
{time} 2145
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and give assurance to
Americans who live in floodways that their homes and livelihoods
matter, and to remove any uncertainty that, should the worst happen,
their lives can return to normal.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
First, let me assure the gentleman that I understand his concerns and
appreciate his passion for protecting his constituents. I agree with
him that, if the floodway is required to be operated in a major flood
event, the levee should be restored as soon as possible after the flood
event. In fact, the committee report on this bill makes that very
point.
Unfortunately, the amendment and the impacts of it are not clear. It
is possible that the amendment would actually increase flood risks for
other communities within the Mississippi River and tributaries project
area.
Without understanding the effects of the amendment, I must oppose it.
Mr. BOST. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. BOST. Mr. Chairman, I do stand in opposition, reluctant
opposition. I have a tremendous respect for the gentleman from
Missouri. I understand what he is trying to do, and that is that if the
activation of the Birds Point levee does occur, that it should be built
back.
But when you read the language, the concern I have is that it would
actually stop the activation of the levee in the first place.
Understand, when these levees were first built, there were certain
key points that were pressure release valves. The Birds Point was one
of those. So as it rises, the Army Corps of Engineers has explained
through a process of when to go in. And when we say crevasse, we mean
we have to actually put explosive charges into the levee to relieve the
pressure so that other areas--this is the way the system was built. It
was designed by engineers to work this way originally.
The concern that we have is not with the fact that it should be built
back, because I agree with the gentleman it should be built back. But
the way the language actually reads, we are not sure that it would
actually stop the Army Corps of Engineers from doing what it is that
they are required by law to do, and that is to use that pressure
release valve in times of emergency.
It is true, we have only had to use it twice since those systems have
been put in place. It is a sad thing when it occurs. It floods a
tremendous amount of crop land, and because it had not been operated in
so long, people had built homes in there. Now, that was unfortunate
that they built them in that situation, but we cannot endanger all
other areas for putting language like this forward. I am more than
willing to work with the gentleman on trying to make sure that this
language is correct. We just couldn't be able to do that at this time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, the language of the amendment is
very clear, very clear. It does one simple thing. It means, if the
activation of this levee ever occurs, that the Federal Government is
obligated to rebuild it.
[[Page H3250]]
It is a limiting amendment that is crystal clear. It provides that,
if there is an activation, that the Federal Government is obligated to
build it back, simple as it is, making sure the Federal Government is
responsible for its actions.
I ask the body to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Walker
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. (a) The amounts otherwise made available by this
Act for the following accounts of the Department of Energy
are hereby reduced by the following amounts:
(1) ``Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy'', $400,000.
(2) ``Nuclear Energy'', $25,455,000.
(3) ``Fossil Energy Research and Development'',
$13,000,000.
(4) ``Strategic Petroleum Reserve'', $45,000,000.
(5) ``Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup'', $2,400,000.
(6) ``Science'', $49,800,000.
(7) ``Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy'',
$14,889,000.
(b) The amounts otherwise made available by this Act for
the following accounts are hereby reduced by the following
amounts:
(1) ``Power Marketing Administrations--Construction,
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power
Administration'', $2,209,000.
(2) ``Nuclear Regulatory Commission--Salaries and
Expenses'', $32,132,000.
Mr. WALKER (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent
to suspend the reading of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from North Carolina and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, this bill includes over $9 billion in
appropriations for 22 nondefense programs that are not authorized by
law. Nine of these programs receive a total of $185 million more than
their enacted 2016 level. Several of these programs have not been
authorized since the 1980s, and one has never been authorized by
Congress.
My amendment is simple. My amendment would reduce unauthorized
nondefense accounts to the 2016 levels. My amendment would also cut
around $185 million and send that money to the spending reduction
account.
In a time when we, as a Nation, are approaching close to $20 trillion
in debt, we cannot continue to fund unauthorized accounts in our
appropriations process. This is a democratic Nation, and the men and
women send the Members of this body, not to slip unauthorized programs
in appropriations bills, but to have an open discussion on our funding
priorities.
Furthermore, the inclusion of appropriations for these programs in
the reported bill is a violation of clause(2)(a)(1) of rule XXI of the
rules of the House.
I applaud Representative Tom McClintock and Conference Chair Cathy
McMorris Rodgers for their significant work to raise awareness of the
problem of unauthorized appropriations and work towards a solution so
that the House actually enforces its rules.
This year's Energy and Water appropriations includes over $1 billion
in appropriations, and six more unauthorized programs that the House
did pass in the 2016 Energy and Water bill from last year.
If we want to fund a program, we should have an open debate and a
transparent process that promotes trust and accountability.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. My
colleague's amendment would reduce multiple accounts in the bill.
This year, the committee continues its responsibility to effectively
manage government spending, and we have worked tirelessly to that end.
For example, the nuclear and fossil programs see modest increases in
the bill to continue our commitment for an all-of-the-above energy
strategy.
Basic research conducted by the Office of Science is increased by
less than 1 percent, to support research and operation efforts to
advance research and development through university partnerships and at
the Nation's national laboratory system.
Programs to clean up the legacy of the Manhattan Project and nuclear
research also see minor increases in order to provide cleanup progress
at sites across the country. These are targeted funds to produce needed
investments to efficiently and safely utilize our natural resources,
maintain the Nation's basic research infrastructure in the physical
sciences, and continue the cleanup of Department of Energy legacy
programs.
I understand my colleague's desire to reduce the size of government,
but this amendment goes too far in reducing the strategic investments
we need to make in our future.
I, therefore, oppose this amendment, and I urge Members to do the
same.
Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I also oppose this amendment, which will reduce jobs in our country
and hurt the middle class. There will be less investment in science,
environmental cleanup, energy research and development, all of which
create the future in this country, and have substantial returns on
investments.
Since 2003, by the way, the United States has spent $2.3 trillion on
importing foreign petroleum. This is a vast shift of wealth. That is
the big shift of wealth, and thousands upon thousands of jobs from our
country elsewhere. This amendment only exacerbates this shift of wealth
from the American middle class.
The bill funds support in science and R&D activities necessary for
our competitiveness. The world is becoming more competitive, not less.
Energy is at the center of that.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wyoming
(Mrs. Lummis).
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.
Scientific research is an important province of the Federal
Government, and normally I support it; but I support it if it has been
authorized.
The programs the gentleman from North Carolina has identified have
not been authorized. Therefore, it is appropriate that the gentleman
from North Carolina be supported in his amendment to just reduce them
to the amount that gets us to flat funding. Flat funding is a
reasonable request for programs that are not authorized.
Let's get those programs reauthorized, if that is what the American
people want, and the Congress wants, and let's do it in a way that
makes sure these programs are authorized in a way that recognizes 21st
century priority.
That should happen at the authorizing committee level. If it doesn't
happen at the authorizing committee level, a couple of things are
wrong: either the authorizing committee doesn't have its hands on
the steering wheel, or the authorizing committee thinks there needs to
be changes that cannot be accomplished if the appropriators keep
increasing the funding.
The incentive for the authorizing committee comes when these programs
are flat-funded. We should not be funding programs with increases that
are no longer authorized.
This is a problem throughout government. It is a way to save money in
a
[[Page H3251]]
government that is $19 trillion in debt, and I applaud the gentleman
from North Carolina for his conscientious, careful, thoughtful,
reasoned amendment.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It simply rolls
back or reduces unauthorized nondefense accounts to the 2016 levels.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, let me respond and tell the story again.
We have already gone through this once tonight about authorizations. I
don't think we should fund any program that isn't authorized. I don't
think we should flat-fund it. I don't think we should fund it. But that
is, unfortunately, what the Appropriations Committee ends up doing
because the authorizing committees aren't doing their dang job. They
are not getting out and reauthorizing the programs.
One year--and I will tell the story again. I will tell it again and
again, I suspect, as we go through all of this--when I was chairman of
the Interior Committee, because the Endangered Species Act at that time
had not been reauthorized for 23 years, 23 years, I took all funding
for listing of endangered species and designation of critical habitat
out of the bill, zero funded it.
We brought the bill to the floor. The biggest supporter of my bill
and opponent to the amendment to put funding in it for those purposes
was the chairman of the Resources Committee. It is the Resources
Committee's responsibility to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act.
But he supported my amendment.
And after all of that, guess what? They still haven't reauthorized
the Endangered Species Act.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Wyoming.
Mrs. LUMMIS. This year, the Land and Water Conservation Fund expired
in its authorization on September 30. In October, we began
reauthorizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund and reforming it to
get it back to its original intent. And before we could complete the
process, the appropriators increased funding and reauthorized it for 3
years.
We can't get the reforms we need when appropriators continue to
appropriate. The burden should be on the authorizers.
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, I agree with the gentlewoman. The burden should be
on the authorizers, and they should do their job, and they should
reauthorize the program.
I still haven't seen the reauthorization for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. That was last year. I still haven't seen it. I
haven't seen the reauthorizations for any of the programs. The whole
State Department is unauthorized.
Where is the reauthorization?
What do you want us to do?
We would eliminate about two-thirds of the Federal Government. Now,
some people might like that. But we would eliminate about two-thirds of
the Federal Government if we just said we are not going to fund any of
the Federal programs.
So, I mean, it is a debate that goes on.
I agree with Congressman McClintock. We have to find a way around
this. We have to find a way to address the reauthorization issue
without screwing up the whole appropriation process.
{time} 2200
I think we can do that if reasonable people sit down and try to find
a way around this. I actually think that every committee chairman ought
to sit down with leadership at the start of a session and say: This is
my 5-year plan, and these are all of the programs that are unauthorized
under my jurisdiction. This is my 5-year plan to get them reauthorized.
They ought to follow through on that work plan.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. DeSantis
Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the finds made available by this Act may
be used to purchase heavy water from Iran.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, to be clear, the JCPOA requires Iran to
cap its stockpile of heavy water. It does not require the U.S. to
subsidize or to purchase that heavy water.
This is a simple funding limitation amendment to an appropriations
bill. It is similar to language used throughout the bill. It is a
matter clearly related to the use of appropriated funds.
I listened to this debate in the Senate, and people said: Well, we
have to spend U.S. tax dollars on getting heavy water; otherwise, Iran
is going to sell it to North Korea. But understand, it is already
against international law to ship heavy water to North Korea. So if
Iran were to decide to do that and violate those sanctions, we have a
way bigger policy issue than simply heavy water purchases, and it would
call into question the entire Iran deal.
So instead of suppressing illicit nuclear proliferation among rogue
nations, continuing purchases of Iranian heavy water would subsidize
Iran's nuclear program and allow them to maintain the threshold
capacity to make a dash for nuclear breakout.
If we want to take heavy water, then we can take it, but we should
not subsidize Iran's nuclear program.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment. Really,
this provision doesn't belong on this appropriations bill. It is an
issue best considered by the Foreign Affairs Committee.
This amendment would prevent the Department from spending any fiscal
17 funds to purchase heavy water produced in Iran and would undermine
the Iran deal.
This transaction provides the United States industry with a critical
product while enabling Iran to sell some of its excess heavy water as
contemplated in the agreement and further ensuring that this product
will not be used to develop a nuclear weapon, which is the objective
that we all sought when we supported the agreement. Heavy water is
needed here in our country. We stopped producing it in 1988 and now buy
what we need from India and other countries.
A portion of this heavy water will be used at the Spallation Neutron
Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and by manufacturers for
fiberoptic cable, MRI machines, and semiconductors.
Most importantly, U.S. purchase of this heavy water prevents Iran
from selling it to those who would choose to use it for the wrong
reasons.
Mr. Chairman, as I have stated, I object to this amendment as
proposed. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the DeSantis
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeSANTIS. It is interesting, Mr. Chair, people talk about the
Iran deal, and what the administration has really been doing is they
have even gone beyond the concessions that are in the Iran deal.
If you look at getting access now to dollarized transactions, they
said they weren't going to have access to the American financial
system, but effectively, Iran is going to have indirect
[[Page H3252]]
access to the American dollar. That was never called for by the Iran
deal. That is a concession. Nor does the deal require us to spend
American taxpayer funds to essentially inject into the Iranian regime
and subsidize the nuclear program.
So, Mr. Chair, I think it is a good amendment. I think our Members
should vote for it.
I yield back the balance of time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will
be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
Amendment by Mr. Weber of Texas.
Amendment by Mr. Ellison of Minnesota.
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Farr of California.
Amendment by Mr. Garamendi of California.
Amendment No. 34 by Mr. Pittenger of North Carolina.
Amendment by Mr. Gosar of Arizona.
Amendment by Mr. Foster of Illinois.
Amendment by Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, as amended.
Amendment by Mr. Byrne of Alabama.
Amendment No. 14 by Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee.
Amendment by Mr. Smith of Missouri.
Amendment by Mr. Walker of North Carolina.
Amendment by Mr. DeSantis of Florida.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Weber of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Weber) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158,
noes 260, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 251]
AYES--158
Abraham
Amash
Babin
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Burgess
Byrne
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Comstock
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly (MS)
King (IA)
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Latta
Love
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Messer
Miller (FL)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Olson
Palmer
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stewart
Stutzman
Thornberry
Tipton
Wagner
Walberg
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zinke
NOES--260
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Amodei
Ashford
Barletta
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boustany
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter (GA)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hardy
Hastings
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hoyer
Huffman
Hurd (TX)
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jolly
Joyce
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Loudermilk
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
McSally
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Mica
Miller (MI)
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Newhouse
Nolan
Norcross
Nugent
Nunes
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Richmond
Rigell
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stefanik
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Trott
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wenstrup
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Young (AK)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--15
Cardenas
Castro (TX)
Duffy
Fattah
Fincher
Granger
Hanna
Herrera Beutler
Honda
Jenkins (KS)
Lamborn
O'Rourke
Rice (NY)
Takai
Yarmuth
{time} 2228
Ms. TSONGAS, Messrs. POLIS, AGUILAR, Ms. PELOSI, Messrs. LOUDERMILK,
and VELA changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. BILIRAKIS, WALBERG, GIBBS, FLEISCHMANN, LABRADOR, Mrs. ROBY,
and Mr. BOST changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Ellison
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Foxx). The unfinished business is the demand
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174,
noes 245, not voting 14, as follows:
[[Page H3253]]
[Roll No. 252]
AYES--174
Adams
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)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Costa
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
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Hunter
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
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)
NOES--245
Abraham
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Himes
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Keating
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Polis
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
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--14
Cardenas
Castro (TX)
Duffy
Fattah
Fincher
Granger
Hanna
Herrera Beutler
Jenkins (KS)
Lamborn
O'Rourke
Rice (NY)
Takai
Yarmuth
{time} 2233
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Farr
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Farr) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189,
noes 228, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 253]
AYES--189
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clawson (FL)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Guinta
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
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
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stefanik
Swalwell (CA)
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)
NOES--228
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
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
[[Page H3254]]
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
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)
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--16
Cardenas
Castro (TX)
Duffy
Fattah
Fincher
Granger
Hanna
Herrera Beutler
Jenkins (KS)
Keating
Lamborn
Meehan
O'Rourke
Rice (NY)
Takai
Yarmuth
{time} 2236
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Garamendi) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 126,
noes 293, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 254]
AYES--126
Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Gallego
Garamendi
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Hinojosa
Honda
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Larsen (WA)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lieu, Ted
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Pallone
Pascrell
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Richmond
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
NOES--293
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bera
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Carson (IN)
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Clyburn
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Delaney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dold
Donovan
Duckworth
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graham
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Holding
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Israel
Issa
Jeffries
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lance
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Norcross
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Rangel
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
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schiff
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Torres
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--14
Cardenas
Castro (TX)
Duffy
Fattah
Fincher
Granger
Hanna
Herrera Beutler
Jenkins (KS)
Lamborn
O'Rourke
Rice (NY)
Takai
Yarmuth
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of Georgia)(during the vote). There is
1 minute remaining.
{time} 2239
Ms. WILSON of Florida changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Pittenger
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Pittenger) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 227,
noes 192, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 255]
AYES--227
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
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
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis, Rodney
[[Page H3255]]
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
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
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--192
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
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)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jolly
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
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
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
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)
NOT VOTING--14
Cardenas
Castro (TX)
Duffy
Fattah
Fincher
Granger
Hanna
Herrera Beutler
Jenkins (KS)
Lamborn
O'Rourke
Rice (NY)
Takai
Yarmuth
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2243
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Gosar) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230,
noes 188, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 256]
AYES--230
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
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)
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--188
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)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
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
Katko
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
[[Page H3256]]
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
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
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stefanik
Swalwell (CA)
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)
NOT VOTING--15
Cardenas
Castro (TX)
Duffy
Fattah
Fincher
Granger
Hanna
Herrera Beutler
Jenkins (KS)
Lamborn
McHenry
O'Rourke
Rice (NY)
Takai
Yarmuth
{time} 2246
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Foster
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Foxx). The unfinished business is the demand
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Foster) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206,
noes 213, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 257]
AYES--206
Aguilar
Allen
Amash
Ashford
Barletta
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bera
Beyer
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brownley (CA)
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Carter (GA)
Cartwright
Chu, Judy
Clarke (NY)
Clawson (FL)
Clay
Coffman
Cohen
Collins (GA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crowley
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Rodney
Delaney
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fitzpatrick
Forbes
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallego
Garamendi
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Graham
Graves (GA)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Gutierrez
Hahn
Harris
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Honda
Hoyer
Hudson
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt (VA)
Israel
Issa
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kildee
Kind
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Knight
LaHood
Lance
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lawrence
Levin
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Loudermilk
Lowenthal
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McClintock
McDermott
McHenry
McSally
Meeks
Meng
Miller (FL)
Moore
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
Pallone
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pelosi
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Polis
Posey
Price, Tom
Quigley
Rangel
Ratcliffe
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rohrabacher
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Rothfus
Rouzer
Ruiz
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Stefanik
Stivers
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tipton
Tonko
Torres
Veasey
Vela
Walberg
Walker
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Wittman
Woodall
Yoho
Zeldin
NOES--213
Abraham
Adams
Aderholt
Amodei
Babin
Barr
Barton
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boustany
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter (TX)
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DelBene
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Edwards
Ellison
Farenthold
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Fortenberry
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hill
Huelskamp
Hurd (TX)
Jackson Lee
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (MS)
Kennedy
Kilmer
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Langevin
Lee
Lewis
Long
Love
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
MacArthur
Marchant
Matsui
McCaul
McCollum
McGovern
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Moulton
Mullin
Mulvaney
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Payne
Pearce
Perlmutter
Pingree
Pittenger
Pitts
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Price (NC)
Reed
Reichert
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rokita
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Speier
Stewart
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Titus
Trott
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walden
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Waters, Maxine
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Westerman
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zinke
NOT VOTING--14
Cardenas
Castro (TX)
Duffy
Fattah
Fincher
Granger
Hanna
Herrera Beutler
Jenkins (KS)
Lamborn
O'Rourke
Rice (NY)
Takai
Yarmuth
{time} 2249
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney), as amended, on which further proceedings
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223,
noes 195, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 258]
AYES--223
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Emmer (MN)
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Hurd (TX)
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jolly
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
[[Page H3257]]
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
McSally
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
Pallone
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Richmond
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shimkus
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stefanik
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
NOES--195
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Farenthold
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt (VA)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Wagner
Walberg
Walker
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Zinke
NOT VOTING--15
Blumenauer
Cardenas
Castro (TX)
Duffy
Fattah
Fincher
Granger
Hanna
Herrera Beutler
Jenkins (KS)
Lamborn
O'Rourke
Rice (NY)
Takai
Yarmuth
{time} 2253
So the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Byrne
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Byrne) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 233,
noes 186, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 259]
AYES--233
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lance
Latta
Lipinski
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
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
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--186
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)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
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
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
LoBiondo
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
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
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
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
[[Page H3258]]
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--14
Cardenas
Castro (TX)
Duffy
Fattah
Fincher
Granger
Hanna
Herrera Beutler
Jenkins (KS)
Lamborn
O'Rourke
Rice (NY)
Takai
Yarmuth
{time} 2256
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158,
noes 258, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 260]
AYES--158
Allen
Amash
Babin
Barton
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Carter (GA)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Collins (GA)
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Cramer
Crawford
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Farenthold
Fleming
Flores
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly (MS)
King (IA)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
Lance
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Lummis
Marchant
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stewart
Stutzman
Tipton
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zinke
NOES--258
Abraham
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Amodei
Ashford
Barletta
Barr
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bost
Boustany
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Connolly
Conyers
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Harper
Hastings
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jolly
Joyce
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
LaHood
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Newhouse
Noem
Nolan
Norcross
Nugent
Nunes
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pittenger
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stefanik
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Trott
Tsongas
Turner
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Womack
Young (AK)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--17
Cardenas
Castro (TX)
Duffy
Fattah
Fincher
Granger
Hanna
Herrera Beutler
Jenkins (KS)
LaMalfa
Lamborn
O'Rourke
Rice (NY)
Sanford
Takai
Waters, Maxine
Yarmuth
{time} 2259
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith of Missouri
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Smith) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 119,
noes 300, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 261]
AYES--119
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Burgess
Byrne
Carter (GA)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clay
Cleaver
Collins (GA)
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fleming
Franks (AZ)
Gabbard
Garrett
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harris
Hartzler
Hice, Jody B.
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hunter
Hurt (VA)
Jones
Jordan
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Knight
LaMalfa
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Palmer
Pearce
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Roe (TN)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rouzer
Russell
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Smith (MO)
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Tipton
Wagner
Walden
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Zinke
NOES--300
Abraham
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Amash
Ashford
Barr
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Black
Blum
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clawson (FL)
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
[[Page H3259]]
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibbs
Gibson
Graham
Graves (LA)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Harper
Hastings
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Hultgren
Hurd (TX)
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Joyce
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (MS)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaHood
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McKinley
McNerney
McSally
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Newhouse
Noem
Nolan
Norcross
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pittenger
Pitts
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Renacci
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Roskam
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Trott
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Weber (TX)
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--14
Cardenas
Castro (TX)
Duffy
Fattah
Fincher
Granger
Hanna
Herrera Beutler
Jenkins (KS)
Lamborn
O'Rourke
Rice (NY)
Takai
Yarmuth
{time} 2302
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Walker
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Walker) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 128,
noes 291, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 262]
AYES--128
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Buck
Burgess
Byrne
Carter (GA)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Conaway
Cook
Culberson
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fleming
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hunter
Hurt (VA)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly (MS)
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lance
Latta
Loudermilk
Love
Lummis
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McClintock
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Messer
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mullin
Mulvaney
Neugebauer
Olson
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ross
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Smith (MO)
Stewart
Stutzman
Tiberi
Tipton
Walberg
Walker
Walters, Mimi
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IN)
Zinke
NOES--291
Abraham
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Ashford
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blum
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bost
Boustany
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hardy
Harper
Hastings
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Hultgren
Hurd (TX)
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jolly
Joyce
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Matsui
McCaul
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
McSally
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Mica
Mooney (WV)
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Newhouse
Noem
Nolan
Norcross
Nugent
Nunes
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stefanik
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Trott
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Weber (TX)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Womack
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--14
Cardenas
Castro (TX)
Duffy
Fattah
Fincher
Granger
Hanna
Herrera Beutler
Jenkins (KS)
Lamborn
O'Rourke
Rice (NY)
Takai
Yarmuth
{time} 2306
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. DeSantis
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. DeSantis) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
[[Page H3260]]
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 251,
noes 168, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 263]
AYES--251
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bera
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Boyle, Brendan F.
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
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Engel
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graham
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
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
Lance
Latta
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters
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
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--168
Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
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
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--14
Cardenas
Castro (TX)
Duffy
Fattah
Fincher
Granger
Hanna
Herrera Beutler
Jenkins (KS)
Lamborn
O'Rourke
Rice (NY)
Takai
Yarmuth
{time} 2309
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Energy and Water Development
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017''.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms.
Ros-Lehtinen) having assumed the chair, Ms. Foxx, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5055)
making appropriations for energy and water development and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and for other
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________