[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 112 (Tuesday, July 12, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H4750-H4790]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Ellison
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in
House Report 114-683.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 38, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Ranking Member Betty
McCollum.
[[Page H4751]]
We can raise the living standards for working families all over the
country right now if we use Federal dollars to create good jobs. The
United States Government is the largest buyer of goods and services in
the world, and the United States Government should use that power to
create good jobs and to create a high-road economy for all Americans.
My amendment would reprogram funds to create an Office of Good Jobs
in the Interior Department that would do the following: it would help
ensure the Department's procurement, grant-making, and regulatory
decisions encourage the creation of decently paid jobs, collective
bargaining rights, and responsible employment practices.
Mr. Chairman, it is important for all Americans to know that more
than 1 in 5 Americans are employed by companies with Federal contracts.
Right now the U.S. Government is America's leading low-wage job
creator.
That is right. The United States Government, at this very hour, funds
over 2 million low-paying jobs through contracts, loans, and grants
with corporate America. That is why more than the total number--the
total number of low-wage workers employed by Walmart and McDonalds
combined do not equal the number of low-wage jobs funded by the United
States Government.
{time} 1800
That is right. Wal-Mart and McDonald's combined have fewer low-wage
jobs than are funded by the Federal Government right now. U.S. contract
workers earn so little that nearly 40 percent of them use public
assistance programs like food stamps and Section 8 to feed and shelter
their families.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota
(Ms. McCollum).
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. This
Office of Good Jobs would help ensure that the Interior contracting
employment decisions encourage the creation of decent paid jobs,
implementation of fair labor practices, and responsible employer
practices.
The Federal Government should set an example to the Nation when it
comes to contracting decisions, and the office will guide Interior to
make responsible contracting employment decisions.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Rice of South Carolina). The gentleman from
California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is duplicative. It ignores
the existing contractor award system that is already in place.
Contracting officers must already consult the system for award
management to ensure a contractor can be awarded a contract. Businesses
on the excluded parties list system have been suspended or debarred
through a due process system and may not be eligible to receive or
renew Federal contracts for such cited offenses.
The best way to ensure that the government contracts with or provides
grants to the best employers is to enforce the existing suspension and
debarment system.
Bad actors who are in violation of the basic worker protections
should not be awarded Federal contracts. That is why the Federal
Government already has a system in place to deny Federal contracts to
bad actors. If a contractor fails to maintain high standards of
integrity and business ethics, agencies already have the authority to
suspend or debar the employer from government contracting. In 2014,
Federal agencies issued more than 1,000 suspensions and nearly 2,000
debarments to employers who bid on Federal contracts.
The amendment would delay the procurement process with harmful
consequences. On numerous occasions, the nonpartisan Government
Accountability Office has highlighted costly litigation stemming from
complex regulatory rules, including from the Fair Labor Standards Act.
This amendment punishes employers who may unknowingly or unwillingly
get caught in the Federal Government's maze of bureaucratic rules and
reporting requirements. The procurement process is already plagued by
delays and inefficiencies.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, let me point out that the gentleman
confuses the debarment process, which says that we are going to look at
the very worst actors and exclude them and the Office of Good Jobs,
which would say that we will use education and we will use
prioritization to make sure that the best employers are the ones that
the American taxpayer is going to employ in order to award contracts.
It is just a simple matter of understanding the difference between
excluding the very worst and rewarding the best.
I think that the American people would like to see the Federal
Government say: You are a good employer, you pay good wages and good
benefits, and we think that that kind of practice is the kind of thing
we like to see, and, therefore, our Office of Good Jobs is going to
prioritize such businesses.
Time and time again, we hear Members of the party opposite confuse
the debarment process with the Office of Good Jobs concept. It is a big
difference, and I think that the American people would agree that where
we find the best practices, we should reward them, not simply create a
big, big bottle, a big, big vat of the best competing with the
mediocre, and then exclude the very, very worst.
I just want to make this point. This is good for good contractors in
many ways, because if you are an excellent contractor and you go out of
your way to reward good workers and help create a hybrid economy, you
are still competing with the people who are doing the bare minimum they
can just to avoid debarment. I think that is not fair to good
contractors. I think good contractors ought to be rewarded.
I think that if we establish this Office of Good Jobs, what we will
see is a general wave throughout our economy as the private sector will
look to the Federal Government as to what the best ways to create a
fair economy could be, and we would see a greater measure of economic
equality and opportunity throughout the land.
I just want to say that if the system we had was adequate, why, then,
would we have 40 percent of all people who work for Federal contractors
eligible for Federal Government programs, like Section 8 and food
stamps? Why would we see that? Well, because we are not prioritizing
good jobs. We are just saying that if you are a lawbreaker, you will be
excluded, but other than that, we don't really care. An Office of Good
Jobs would change that.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
It is intended that the appropriation for Departmental Operations in
the Office of the Secretary at the United States Interior Department be
used to establish an Office of Good Jobs in the Department aimed at
ensuring that the Department's procurement, grant-making, and
regulatory decisions encourage the creation of decently paid jobs,
collective bargaining rights, and responsible employment practices. The
office's structure shall be substantially similar to the Centers for
Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships located within the Department
of Education, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department
of Homeland Security, Department of Health and Human Services,
Department of Labor, Department of Agriculture, and Department of
Commerce, Department of Veterans Affairs, U.S. Department of State,
Small Business Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, the
Corporation for National and Community Service, and U.S. Agency for
International Development.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, we have a process in place. I certainly
won't support subjective Federal decision-makers deciding who is a good
employer and who is a bad employer. As a former employer myself, I know
that most employers in this country are good people who want to make
sure that people have good jobs.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
[[Page H4752]]
Mr. ELLISON. 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 Minnesota
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Norcross
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 9
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. NORCROSS. 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:
Page 38, line 20, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $13,060,000)''.
Page 40, line 7, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $13,060,000)''.
Page 74, line 25, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $13,060,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Chairman, my simple amendment would add $13 million
to the Hazardous Substance Superfund to equal the level requested by
the EPA.
Superfund cleanup is the right thing for the environment, right for
the economy, and certainly right for public health.
I am from the Garden State. We are known across the country for
having the best tomatoes, corn, blueberries, and cranberries we grow.
But in south Jersey, we have a history as a cornerstone of heavy
industry. New Jersey found out the hard way what you can and what you
can't dump into the lakes, backyards, and other facilities.
Then companies left, leaving our constituents holding the bag.
Representative Jim Florio, who held my seat from 1975 to 1990, saw
these very issues in south Jersey and across the country. That is why
he authored the Superfund legislation back in 1980. Almost four decades
later, the list of Superfund sites is still overflowing. There are well
over 1,000 contaminated sites across the country, and I have 13 in my
district alone.
In 2015, the GAO studied the progress of the Superfund program. The
report found that, in real dollars, appropriations to the EPA Superfund
program declined almost $1 billion from 1999 to 2013.
Congress has funded less than 40 percent of shovel-ready cleanup
projects. The EPA is often forced to prioritize one seriously
contaminated site over another, leaving those other sites to be
contaminated, in some cases, up to 50 years.
This amendment would help the EPA clean up more contaminated
materials in their parks, backyards, and commercial properties sooner
rather than later.
Mr. Chairman, later the House will consider another amendment of mine
that would designate an additional $15 million within the Superfund
account, specifically for the enforcement division.
Not only do we consistently underfund Superfund cleanup activities,
we have even underfunded the EPA office that is supposed to go after
those polluters who have been found guilty of dumping and polluting our
environment.
As I mentioned earlier, in my district alone, I have over 13 sites
that lay contaminated today. I just briefly want to tell you about
three of them. The sites are named after the company that was accused
and has been found liable, that is the Sherwin-Williams site. These
sites include the Sherwin-Williams/Hilliard's Creek site located in
Gibbsboro, the Route 561 Dump Site in Gibbsboro, and United States
Avenue Burn Site in Gibbsboro. Those other sites include part of
Voorhees also.
Back in the 1930s, Sherwin-Williams opened a paint factory. For 20
years, they dangerously dumped these chemicals that were related to
their synthetic varnish to be produced and dumped in around the
Gibbsboro and Voorhees area.
These toxic chemicals from the varnish seeped into the groundwater,
contaminating not only the commercial properties, but the streams,
lakes, and homes for miles around. After the devastating events of
Flint, Michigan, I know I don't have to tell you about the horrific
effects of lead exposure on children's developmental issues and
pregnant women. According to the EPA, long-term exposure to high levels
of arsenic can lead to cancers like skin cancer, bladder cancer, and
lung cancer.
This is why my constituents and, quite frankly, all Americans across
the country are faced with this decision. They need relief today--not
in a few years from now. We must hold companies like Sherwin-Williams
accountable for the havoc that they have wreaked in communities like
Gibbsboro and Voorhees. We owe it to our constituents to do everything
in our power to protect their health.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate the intent of the
gentleman's amendment to increase funding for the Superfund, something
that we all support, it is important that Members understand two
things: First, top line funding for the Superfund is already increased
in the bill by $27 million from the FY16 enacted level.
Second, the gentleman proposes to reduce funding for the Payments in
Lieu of Taxes, PILT, program which is critical to counties and local
governments in 49 States, including New Jersey, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories. PILT is fully funded in this
bill. It is a program supported by a large, bipartisan majority in the
House. A reduction in the PILT funding would have a detrimental effect
on counties and local governments across the country.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the gentleman's
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Chairman, this is about protecting public health
from designated sites that have been contaminated for literally
decades.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. NORCROSS. 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 Jersey
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Beyer
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 10
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. BEYER. 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:
Page 67, strike lines 4 through 19.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Beyer) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply strips the language
that would block the implementation of the Stream Protection Rule.
We should not willfully delay or stop this rule. I am very familiar
with mountaintop removal mining. When I was Lieutenant Governor of
Virginia in the 1990s, mountaintop removal mining became the most
prevalent coal mining technique in central Appalachia. I made more than
100 trips to Virginia's coalfields, and I know firsthand the negative
impact mountaintop removal has had on the environment and on the health
of these communities.
If we know of reasonable ways to mitigate negative effects, we should
be doing everything in our power to implement them. That is why the
Stream Protection Rule is so important.
During mountaintop removal, tens of thousands of cubic feet of
mountaintops are blown off with explosives and
[[Page H4753]]
pushed over the sides, filling mountain valleys with enormous waste
piles.
{time} 1815
These valley fills, as they are called, bury headwater streams and
everything else that once populated the valley. Already, mountaintop
removal mining has flattened more than 500,000 acres of forested land
and permanently buried over 2,000 miles of streams, destroying sources
that feed our water.
Emerging science has documented a dramatic decline in the diversity,
the abundance, and the biomass of fish in streams with pollution that
results from mining. It is the coal industry that asked the government
to clearly define the expectations for environmental protection, and
that is what this rule does. By introducing verified scientific methods
and testing, the government provides regulatory certainty and achieves
the environmental protection that is required by law.
Without this rule, stream destruction continues to occur and the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement will remain
vulnerable to more legal challenges. Local citizens will be forced to
resort to the courts instead of having their government act to protect
their welfare.
The stream protection rule is sufficiently flexible to accommodate
the different regions where coal is mined. It is very different in
Wyoming than it is in southwest Virginia. The rule is designed to
prevent water pollution due to coal mining using current scientific
understanding. It is designed to protect our families while protecting
jobs. In fact, the Office of Surface Mining's analysis shows this rule
will have minimal impact on coal companies and minimal job loss. The
estimate is 10 lost jobs--10.
We have seen how necessary this rule is in Virginia. Water monitoring
found that Kelly Branch Mine in Wise County dumped the toxic pollutant
selenium into streams at levels way above State water quality standards
and without a permit to allow such pollution. As a result of a citizen
suit, Southern Coal Corporation has since agreed to perform
environmental cleanup projects and pay penalties and attorney fees for
these pollution violations.
But, Mr. Chairman, we shouldn't need lawsuits. This violation
shouldn't happen in the first place. Now is the time to give the people
of Appalachia and others around the country protections for their
waterways that were promised to them by Congress.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this 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, in 2008, the Office of Surface Mining
finalized revisions to the stream zone buffer rule in an open and
transparent manner. After taking office, the Obama administration put
on hold that rule and proposed a different rule last year without the
input of the States.
The administration's approach under the new rule has been anything
but collaborative and inclusive, and States have been totally shut out
of the process. In response, the FY16 omnibus includes language to
bring the States and the administration back together. To date, OSM has
not shared all documents with the States and refuses to meet with the
States that have requested meetings.
The American people expect more--more openness and transparency from
their government--and that is why this funding prohibition must remain
in the base bill.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and reject this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the ranking member.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
The amendment would allow OMS to deal with the continuing problems
posed by mountaintop mining removal because this practice contaminates,
destroys streams, and negatively impacts human health. Two lawsuits
challenge this Bush-era rule, and in February 2014, U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia vacated a 2008 stream buffer rule.
It is important that we allow this to move forward, and I am going to
simply state why.
In a study in 2011, it found that counties near mountaintop mining
areas had higher rates for five out of six types of birth defects,
including circulatory, respiratory, skeletomuscular, central nervous
system, gastrointestinal, and I could go on and on. Clearly, we know
that the health effects from mountaintop mining-related air and water
contamination is cumulative and is dangerous to public health.
OSM must be allowed to go forward with this water protection rule to
guarantee the public an opportunity to live a healthy life.
I urge my colleagues to support the Beyer amendment.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, with great respect to the subcommittee
chairman, I was at the hearing all morning at Natural Resources a few
months ago when we had the Director of the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement on this exact issue. He deeply resisted the
idea, what he called, I think it was, the fix or the myth that we
weren't working closely with the States.
I completely agree with the subcommittee chairman that the Office of
Surface Mining should work very closely with the States to develop this
rule and, in fact, insisted that they had from the beginning of the
Obama administration, picking up on what the Bush administration had
done, right through today. I agree that this is appropriate, but I
resist the wisdom of the truth that the States have been shut out of
the process.
One more small point, but a really important point. A 2009 report on
the NIH Web site estimated that coal mining cost Appalachia five times
more in premature deaths--$42 billion--than it provided the region in
all jobs, taxes, and other economic benefits from coal mining--just $8
billion.
We are not trying to get rid of coal. There is no war on coal. We
just want to make sure that the people who are doing the work who live
there are protected.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much time
is remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 4 minutes
remaining.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).
Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this is a critically
important issue--the prohibition that is contained in this bill--
relating to this incredible overreach of the regulatory authority from
this administration.
The stream buffer zone rule is similar in character to so many of the
efforts of this administration to empower the EPA and, in this case,
the Office of Surface Mining to do things that are without legal basis
and authority under the law. What is very important about this
provision in this bill is saying no to this administration, no, once
again, to a regulatory overreach that is not founded in basis of law.
I strongly urge the rejection of this amendment so we maintain the
language that is contained in the Interior appropriations bill saying
no to this administration's overreach of the rules and regulations. I
suggest and encourage a rejection of this amendment.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' 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 Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BEYER. 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 Virginia
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Huffman
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentlewoman from
New
[[Page H4754]]
Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham), I offer amendment No. 11.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 68, strike lines 3 through 8.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Huffman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes section 122 from
the underlying bill. That section would prevent the BLM from meeting
its statutory obligations under the Mineral Leasing Act to ensure
operators ``use all reasonable precautions to prevent waste of oil or
gas.''
The BLM would also be prevented, if this underlying provision
remains, from modernizing the existing 30-year-old oil and gas
production rules to bring them into line with technological
advancements in the industry. If that provision stays in the bill,
States, tribes, and Federal taxpayers stand to lose royalty revenues
when natural gas is wasted, which a 2010 GAO report estimated could
amount to as much as $23 million, annually, in royalty revenue.
If this provision remains in the bill, BLM will not be able to update
the current royalty rate or raise it as conditions may warrant. A
recommendation has been made by both the GAO and the inspector general
that they do that, that the conditions do indicate that an increase is
in order.
So it is just good government to take this provision out, to update a
30-year-old set of regulations in order to better reflect the current
operating climate and to ensure a fair royalty return.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, the bill includes section 122 because the
Bureau of Land Management does not have the authority to regulate
methane emissions. Congress has given that authority to the
Environmental Protection Agency. BLM's proposed regulation is just
another part of the administration's overly aggressive regulatory
agenda and overly broad interpretation of current law.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
Can you imagine a 30-year-old oil and gas production rule and not
being able to update it? This amendment allows a 30-year-old rule to
comply with today's technology to make sure that we are doing what is
best practices in the industry and we can work with the industry to do
proper oversight.
As was pointed out, if this provision stays in place, States, tribes,
and Federal taxpayers would lose royalty revenues. We should be doing
everything we can with our public lands to make sure the taxpayer
receives full value whenever there is a lease.
I support this amendment, and I urge for its adoption.
Just once again, imagine not being able to update 30-year-old rules
and not being able to update current royalty rates. We need to do
better by the American taxpayer; we need to strike this provision; we
need to do the updates; we need to update 30-year-old regulations; and
we need to make sure that the American taxpayer gets a fair return on
its royalties.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. McCOLLUM. 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 California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in House Report 114-683.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. 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:
Page 69, beginning at line 3, strike section 124.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Castor) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my amendment ensures that we
keep the appropriate safety regulations in place for offshore oil
drilling to reduce the risk of an offshore oil disaster and the
devastating impacts on our economy and environment.
The Deepwater Horizon blowout of 2010 is still very fresh in our
minds. I represent a Gulf Coast district in Florida, in Tampa Bay, and
I remember very well the 87 days that oil spewed out of that Deepwater
well, the 11 lives lost, and the huge economic losses.
One study said that, in Florida, we lost 50,000 jobs because of that
blowout, not to mention the environmental catastrophe that it was, that
we are still trying to determine the long-term impacts.
{time} 1830
For 87 days, the well continued to pump 134 million gallons of toxic
oil before it could be stopped. This tarred fisheries, wildlife, and
fragile ecosystems. I will always remember the motel owner from
Pinellas County who cried because all of her business had evaporated.
We didn't even have oil on the Gulf Coast beaches around Tampa Bay, but
all of the tourists left. Our lifeblood in Florida is the tourism
industry and the fishing industry.
This is really inexplicable after years of working with industry,
after congressional hearings to determine the causes of that disaster,
after numerous investigative reports, including the bipartisan National
Oil Spill Commission, led by former Florida Governor and Senator Bob
Graham, and Republican and former EPA Administrator William Riley,
where they zeroed in on the fact that it was the well casing and the
blow-out preventer that was the source of the problem. Based upon all
of those findings and investigations, the Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement developed its final Well Control Rule, which
focuses on the blow-out preventer and well control requirements,
because this is America, and we can develop state-of-the-art technology
for risky oil drilling no matter where it is occurring.
The final rule was developed after unprecedented outreach and
consultation with industry and other stakeholders. It addresses the
full range of systems and equipment that are related to well control
operations, with a focus on blow-out preventer requirements, well
design, well control casings, cementing, real-time monitoring, and
subsea containment. These measures are designed to improve equipment
reliability, especially for blow-out preventers. The most important
thing is they protect our communities. They protect us from a disaster
like the BP Deepwater Horizon from ever happening again.
It is really inexplicable that the Republicans on the House
Appropriations Committee zeroed in on this safety rule in this
appropriations bill and said we are not going to support it, that we
are not going to fund it for this year. What is that going to do?
Industry already supports most of these things. They don't want to be
on the hook for billions and billions of dollars. It is just, clearly,
inexplicable to put our communities at risk again for another disaster
like that.
The Castor amendment eliminates this harmful provision, and it
maintains the Department of the Interior's critical safety standards to
prevent offshore oil disasters. The Gulf Coast is still reeling from
the disaster of 2010, and local economies across the country cannot
afford another catastrophe like
[[Page H4755]]
BP's. I urge the adoption of the Castor amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Minnesota
(Ms. McCollum), the ranking member.
Ms. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentlewoman.
Mr. Chairman, investigations were conducted by industry experts, and
they determined the actual causes of the catastrophe of the Deepwater.
Many of the requirements of this rule are not new, and they already
exist in industry standards.
This rule has one goal for me, and that is to save lives. Eleven
lives were lost in that explosion. We have learned from that event. It
was a tragic event what happened with the Deepwater Horizon. We should
do everything we can to put workers' safety ahead of Big Oil's profits.
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, at various hearings throughout the year,
Chairman Calvert expressed concern that the administration was taking a
page out of its ``war on coal'' playbook and applying it to oil
production.
The Department of the Interior has been attempting to make it as
costly as possible to operate offshore so that companies will make the
decision not to apply for a permit. They took that a step further last
week with its Arctic regulations. In this instance, the Department set
onerous requirements under the Well Control Rule that mandated that all
wells should have the same thickness regardless of where you are
drilling. Now, any engineer will tell you that these are site-specific
decisions that are based on many factors and that the thickness will
vary, depending on where the well is drilled.
Instead, the White House wants to lock in that decision from
Washington, D.C. and ignore recommendations from technical experts. The
result is an Obama administration de facto moratorium on oil production
as part of the White House's ``keep it in the ground'' strategy. I urge
a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if you support the tourism
industry, if you support the jobs in the fishing industry, if you
support just saving lives, and being able to prevent disasters like the
BP Deepwater Horizon from ever happening again, it is important that
you stand up for these very basic, industry supported safety standards.
The well rule was developed after months and years of investigations
and study with stakeholder help.
The bottom line is we have to do everything we can to prevent this
from ever happening again in order to protect our economy, to protect
our jobs, to protect our natural environment; so I urge the adoption of
the Castor amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. 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 gentlewoman from Florida
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Huffman
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 70, strike line 1 and all that follows through page
71, line 18.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Huffman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that my colleague from Florida
brought up the Deepwater Horizon tragedy because it was 6 years ago
this week, actually, after 87 terrible days of the worst oil spill in
history, that the BP Deepwater Horizon's wellhead was finally capped.
The toll of that disaster, as everyone knows, was horrific--11 workers
killed, untold economic damage to communities around the Gulf of
Mexico, and, of course, devastating and ongoing impacts on fish and
wildlife.
This is a good time for us to reflect and to discuss the role of the
Federal Government in reviewing the environmental impacts of oil and
gas development, not just in the Gulf of Mexico, but in a place where
the environmental damage could be even worse if and when something went
wrong, say, in the Arctic Ocean.
My amendment would strike section 127 of the underlying bill. Doing
that would allow the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to move forward
with its proposed update of regulation on air quality control reporting
and compliance. It would allow that proposed rule to serve its intended
purpose, which is to bring decades-old rules on offshore air emissions
into the 21st century.
The BOEM, itself, is a new agency. It was born out of the response to
the BP Deepwater Horizon spill, but it was also born out of an
awareness that the old agency--the Minerals Management Service--was,
frankly, too cozy with Big Oil, and that that is why that old agency
never updated these old rules. These existing air pollution rules have
been in place since 1988, and it is past time that we moved forward
with new pollution standards, new modeling, and new technology.
The proposed rule, in this case, seeks to address the emissions of
several very harmful air pollutants, including volatile organic
compounds, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, and
particulate matter. The proposed rule does that with flexibility.
Actually, in some cases, it reduces regulatory burdens by eliminating
redundant reporting requirements and by allowing operators to use
emissions credits.
The residents of the Arctic and other oil-producing regions and the
workers in the industry shouldn't be subjected to additional air
pollution from oil and gas development simply because of where they
live and work. We should let these new rules go forward. If history
teaches us anything, it teaches us that Big Oil cannot be trusted to do
the right thing when it is left unregulated. I would hope that my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle would agree that strong and
consistent oversight is necessary. I ask for a ``yes'' vote.
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, the administration has started the process
to promulgate new air quality regulations for offshore operations with
the intention of finalizing them by year's end; however, key studies
are currently underway that will not be finished until sometime next
year, in 2017. The administration wants to finalize these rules before
these key studies are done.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has allocated nearly $4 million
for the studies to determine if there are any impacts to a State's air
quality from offshore operations. Section 127 of this bill instructs
the Department to wait until these studies are finalized and to restart
only if the findings indicate there is a need for rulemaking.
This is one of those cases in which we say let the science be the
science, and let's find out what the studies say before we make final
decisions on this. There is a regulatory process which should be
followed, and there is a scientific process that should be followed.
That is coming from a Republican. The administration cannot circumvent
one for the expediency of the other; so I urge a ``no'' vote on this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, it always warms my heart to hear my
Republican colleagues embrace science. It is a beautiful thing. I wish
it happened a lot more often.
In this case, we have had 30 years of study. We know a lot. The
administration has developed this rule to the
[[Page H4756]]
point at which it believes it is ready. It is an important rule; it is
long overdue; and it is time to move forward. I continue to request a
``yes'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this
amendment and to let the process go through and the studies and to find
out what the studies say. Let's follow the science. I urge my
colleagues to follow that and to vote ``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. Huffman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HUFFMAN. 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 California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Smith of Missouri
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 72, line 11, after the aggregate dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $88,282,000)''.
Page 184, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $88,282,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, under the Obama administration,
we have seen an explosion of new regulations that have impacted every
area of our lives. From the way we heat our homes in the winter to the
way that we choose our health care, this administration knows no bounds
in its regulatory overreach.
The EPA leads the way on this front. According to a report that was
released by the American Action Forum, the EPA now imposes nearly 200
million hours of paperwork to comply with its regulations. This is the
equivalent of 95,000 Americans working full-time for a year. This
represents an astonishing 23 percent increase from 2009 and a 34
percent increase since 2002 in the EPA's paperwork burden.
New regulations, such as the Clean Power Plan, waters of the United
States, and the ozone rule, all contribute to this growing burden. Yet,
this burden isn't limited to just the act of doing paperwork. These
regulations raise the price of energy, cost Missourians jobs, and hurt
their bottom lines. The EPA uses the Air, Climate and Energy, ACE,
program to advance research and regulations that are geared toward a
climate change agenda. Regulations to address climate change are
costing Americans billions with there being very little actual impact
on global temperatures to show for it. The result of ACE research
furthers regulations, which burden our Nation's energy sector and
communities across the country.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and cut the ACE program
and leave us with one less program to advance the regulatory overreach
of this administration's and save taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1845
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
This amendment would eliminate the funding for the EPA Air, Climate,
and Energy research program. I think we all know that the Clean Air Act
has resulted in one of the most effective public health programs in
American history by addressing air quality in the United States.
What this amendment would do would be to set back any advances in new
technology and new scientific tools that would help protect the
American public from harmful exposure to air pollutants which, as we
know, can damage our health, causing lung and heart disease, impact our
immune, nervous, and reproductive systems, and shorten our lives.
Millions of people in America live in counties that do not meet air
quality standards for one or more pollutants, and new threats from
climate change expand the air quality challenges confronting our
society.
The energy choices we make clearly influence air quality and climate
change. Eliminating EPA funding to research and understand the impacts
on air quality from alternative energy sources is, at a minimum,
shortsighted.
The bill already reduces the EPA by $164 million from the FY 2016
enacted level. I think we have already done enough damage in that
particular reduction.
For the health and welfare of our citizens, I urge my colleagues to
reject this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to urge my colleagues to reject
this amendment.
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.
Ms. PINGREE. 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 Missouri
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mrs. Lummis
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Chaffetz), I offer amendment No. 15.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 73, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $14,000,000)''.
Page 74, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,038,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentlewoman
from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment transfers approximately $10
million to the EPA's Office of Inspector General from the $2.5 billion
EPA environmental programs and management appropriations account. The
amendment is necessary to support the EPA OIG's work related to
preventing waste, fraud, and abuse, and identifying inefficiencies and
potential cost savings at the EPA.
The EPA Office of Inspector General has faced significant funding
challenges in recent years. Its full-time employees dropped from 349 to
289, a decrease of almost one-fifth of the office's workforce.
Despite significant resource challenges, the Office of Inspector
General at EPA continued to conduct important investigations and audits
that saved money for taxpayers and revealed misconduct and abuses at
the agency. During FY14, EPA OIG reported $380 million in savings,
which is a $7.35 return on investment for every dollar in the OIG
budget. The EPA's Office of Inspector General identified $4.1 million
in savings during the most recent semiannual reporting period.
The EPA OIG has also investigated gross misconduct and abuses at EPA
that yielded savings for taxpayers. For instance, in 2013, the office
conducted a criminal investigation into former EPA employee John Beale,
who was found to have stolen government money and engaged in travel
voucher fraud and time and attendance fraud. Beale committed these
frauds by masquerading as an employee of the Central Intelligence
Agency. Beale agreed to pay restitution of $890,000 to EPA and $500,000
to the Department of Justice. Beale was also sentenced to 32 months in
prison.
The EPA Office of Inspector General also investigated allegations of
gross
[[Page H4757]]
mismanagement at the Chemical Safety Board in 2012 and found hostility
toward whistleblowers and a toxic, ineffective work environment
undermined by the board's chemical accident investigations. The EPA
OIG's investigation and pressure from Congress caused the President to
remove the CSB chairman.
I want you to know that as the subcommittee chairman on our
committee, that we have looked at the EPA and we have taken the
Inspector General's reports and we have used them to make considerable
changes that have increased morale, especially at the Chemical Safety
Board; and that we have also saved taxpayer dollars because we have
utilized the Office of Inspector General reports. They have shed light
on a litany of other employee misconduct. This is a good investment of
taxpayer dollars.
This amendment ensures that EPA OIG will have the resources it needs
to continue to conduct these essential investigations. So the amendment
increases funding for the EPA OIG by $10,038,000. It decreases EPA
environmental programs and management appropriations by $14 million.
That is actually awash when you look at the out years.
I strongly encourage adoption of the Chaffetz amendment to this
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, with gratitude for your time, I yield back the balance
of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a few points about
this amendment. As my colleague has said, this would reduce the funds
from EPA operations by $14 million and increase the Inspector General
by $10 million. I think we would certainly agree that it would be a
good idea to increase the funding for the Inspector General, and we
would like to see the other side increase those funds.
But we are uncomfortable with the idea of taking the funding from the
operating account. This account has already been cut by $92 million,
and it would reduce the operating account by $14 million, putting that
money over there. This seems like too severe of a cut on top of what
has already been done.
We don't disagree that the work of the Inspectors General across all
agencies in Federal Government are necessary and very important and
they do good work.
So, once again, I just oppose the shift in funding. I think it would
be great if the other side wanted to enhance the funding for the Office
of Inspector General, just not through this mechanism.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Gosar
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. GOSAR. 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:
Page 73, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $70,000,000)''.
Page 95, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $70,000,000)''.
Page 96, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $70,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a commonsense amendment that
redirects funds from EPA bureaucracy to the Forest Services' hazardous
fuels account in order to prevent dangerous wildfires.
In 2015, over 10 million acres burned throughout the country, setting
a new record. In that same year, fire season appropriations requests
were approximately $4 billion for all wildfire programs. Shamefully,
the President requested only $356 million of those funds go toward
hazardous fuels reduction activities.
Thinning overgrown forests and removing hazardous fuels creates jobs
and increases overall forest health. Unfortunately, extremist self-
interest groups and Washington bureaucrats have failed to recognize
this correlation. As a result, timber harvests are down 80 percent over
the last 30 years.
Such flawed thinking also negatively impacts education and local
communities. Historically, 25 percent of the receipts from timber
harvests by the Federal Government go toward schools and important
infrastructure projects.
The failure to prioritize hazardous fuels reduction activities is
also bad for our environment, as sound data from NASA concludes that
one catastrophic wildfire can emit more carbon emissions in a few days
than total emissions in an entire State over the course of a year.
As it currently stands, the Forest Service consistently raids its own
treasury when firefighting costs exceed their estimated yearly
allotment, taking money from programs that clear brush and remove dead
trees. This represents yet another classic example of Washington's
misguided prioritization of Federal funds.
The Forest Service's own Fuel Treatment Effective Database reports
that ``over 90 percent of the fuel treatments were effective in
changing fire behavior and/or helping with control of the wildfire.''
Hazardous fuels reduction activities work. In eastern Arizona, areas
that were treated in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest as part of
the White Mountain Stewardship Project help prevent further destruction
from the catastrophic Wallow Fire.
Today there are still healthy trees as firefighters were able to
control previously thinned areas. On other lands that were untouched by
thinning practices and managed by the Forest Service, all that is left
behind is scorched earth and sterilized soil.
It is of the utmost urgency that the Federal Government adopt a
forward-thinking, active management strategy that combats dangerous
wildfires before they get started. My amendment helps accomplish that
task by redirecting scarce resources to important hazardous fuels
reduction activities.
I am honored that this amendment is supported by the Americans for
Limited Government, Public Lands Council, National Cattlemen's Beef
Association, Agribusiness & Water Council of Arizona, Lake Havasu Area
Chamber of Commerce, New Mexico Wool Growers, New Mexico Federal Lands
Council, Yavapai County Cattle Growers' Association, Yuma County
Chamber of Commerce, and countless other organizations and individuals
in my home State of Arizona.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank the chairman
and ranking member for their good work on this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I have to strongly oppose this amendment
that would take even more money from the already starved EPA. The bill
has already severely cut the Environmental Protection Agency's main
operating account by $92 million. This would cut it by another $70
million. And so far tonight, we have agreed to another $29 million
through amendments.
The very air we breathe and the water we drink are endangered by the
funding and the policy decisions that are already made in this bill.
Their consequences will be felt negatively in communities across this
country.
I know it is often an easy target for my colleagues across the aisle
to cut the EPA, but I do want my colleagues to understand what this
amendment would mean if this cut was adopted.
The account funds programs that are important to both sides of the
aisle, including permitting for construction projects across the
country; toxics; risk prevention; part of the successful brownfields
program; pesticides licensing, which, as we know, is a critical part of
fighting the Zika crisis.
In my opinion, this very large cut would be irresponsible, and I urge
my colleagues to oppose it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert).
[[Page H4758]]
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I believe that the Forest Service needs to
be more proactive in managing our national forests. The latest
estimates show that there are nearly 66 million dead and dying trees in
California right now. This sets the stage for what could be a
disastrous fire seed. We simply must get ahead of this situation. This
is why we provided significant increases for hazardous fuel and
management programs in this bill, but certainly we would support any
additional help.
I would move to adopt this very important amendment.
{time} 1900
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). The gentleman from Arizona has
1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, while the bill does include nearly $2.9
billion for wildfire activities, which I am thankful for, most of these
dollars are focused on suppression activities.
As I stated previously, the 2015 fire season set a new record,
burning more than 10 million acres throughout the country. It is easy
to make that statement when it is not your home burning. Clearly, we
must focus on proactive solutions for our Nation's forests.
The best way to do so is by providing the Forest Service hazardous
fuel account with appropriate funding in order to prevent hazardous
wildfires. My amendment accomplishes that task by redirecting scarce
resources from the EPA's bureaucracy.
The EPA is far from being underfunded. As it stands, this bill
currently funds the EPA at over $7.98 billion. This marginal loss to a
rogue administration that continues to circumvent Congress in order to
implement lawless regulations is better spent through my amendment and
will dramatically increase the Forest Service's ability to prevent
dangerous wildfires. Again, I urge the support of my amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I just want to reiterate again, this bill
has already severely cut the EPA's main operating account by $92
million. Already tonight, amendments have cut it another $29 million.
This agency is fundamental. The protection that they do is critical.
This account funds programs that are important to us on both sides of
the aisle.
No one disagrees that it is important to fund the disastrous
wildfires that have taken over in our country, and we very much
understand those challenges, but this amendment is irresponsible. I
urge my colleagues to oppose it.
Madam Chair, 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. 17 Offered by Mr. Westerman
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 73, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $12,000,000)''.
Page 90, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I would like to thank the gentleman from
California, Chairman Calvert, for allowing me the opportunity to offer
this important amendment.
I rise today in support of my amendment. My amendment is simple. It
removes $12 million from the EPA's environmental programs and
management account and places $10 million into the U.S. Forest
Service's forest and rangeland research account, which funds important
scientific research through the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program
and the Forest Products Laboratory. This will free up money from the
Federal bureaucracy for use in on-the-ground scientific research into
forest health, wood products, biomass, and threatened species.
To make sound forest management decisions, it is imperative to
quantify the amount of standing timber, the harvest and usage rates,
how much is lost to insects and disease infestation, how many trees are
lost to wildfire, and how much net growth occurs in our forest. The
Forest Inventory and Analysis Program does just that.
The data is used to assess the quantity and quality of our
forestlands, both public and private. It lets us know if we are gaining
or losing forestland, and it tells us if we have a net loss or net gain
in trees and tree volume. This data is critical to calculate how much
carbon storage we have in our forest, and without this data, we cannot
understand our total carbon balance.
The Forest Service often finds itself on extended sampling periods,
sometime as many as 6 or 7 years, leading to delayed analysis of our
Nation's forest landscape. This forces States to increase their
matching contributions in order to have sound, timely scientific data
for statewide forest management plans.
FIA takes proactive, positive steps in the area of better forest
management. FIA leads to scientific forest management practices that
increase carbon storage and reduce the threat to wildfire. Additional
funding to FIA will also give wood products and timber industries
certainty in making business decisions. Forestry employs approximately
2.8 million people nationwide, and this is larger than the automotive
industry.
The forest and rangeland research account also funds the Forest
Products Laboratory. The Forest Products Laboratory conducts
significant scientific research into wood products, forest biomass, the
use of wood in tall buildings and threats to various species, such as
white-nose syndrome. This amendment is a win-win for a healthy
environment and scientific research.
Madam Chair, I again want to thank the gentleman from California,
Chairman Calvert, for the opportunity to offer this amendment.
Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WESTERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CALVERT. I just want to make a point.
I appreciate the gentleman's interest in forestry issues and his
support for changing the way we budget for catastrophic wildland fires.
An increase in the Forest Service's research capability will help
address our forest management issues. I support the amendment, and I
certainly urge its adoption.
I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, again, I must oppose this amendment because
it continues to take more money from the already-starved EPA. The EPA's
main operating account was cut by $92 million in the bill. With the
last amendment that just passed, we have cut another $99 million
tonight from the EPA account.
We are not arguing that funding for forest and rangeland research is
a poor purpose, but it was fully funded in the budget, and it is
starting to feel a little bit like we are just seeing amendment after
amendment that is a way to starve the EPA.
The EPA is a critical agency. The very air that we breathe, the water
that we drink are endangered by the funding and policy decisions that
are being made in this bill. The consequences will be felt negatively
in communities across the country.
I just cannot support taking money from an underfunded agency and
putting it into a program that is already receiving an increase in this
bill, so I oppose the amendment.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, healthy forests are critical to clean
air, clean water, better wildlife habitat, better recreation
opportunities, and more biodiversity. This amendment will promote
healthy forests, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
[[Page H4759]]
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, we certainly support healthy forests. I
represent the State of Maine, where we have a tremendous amount of
forests and many people who work in the forest products industry, so we
respect the value of this research. But it was fully funded in the
budget, and this is just another cut to the EPA and will take away from
the work that they are able to do to protect our clean air and clean
water. 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 Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 73, line 17, insert ``, consistent with Executive
Order 12898,'' after ``implementation''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, power companies are closing
coal-fired power plants as we move toward cleaner, more sustainable
ways to generate electricity. A material known as coal ash is a
byproduct of this industry. Coal ash contains carcinogens, known
carcinogens, such as arsenic, lead, and mercury.
The EPA is now regulating coal ash with its final rule on the
disposal of coal combustion residuals from electric utilities. Many of
the neighborhoods already exposed to dangerous levels of coal ash are
in predominantly low-income and minority communities.
The problem of low-income and minority communities being
disproportionately exposed to chemicals, hazardous waste, and toxic
materials is neither new nor confined to one area of the country. More
than 134 million Americans--their homes, schools, businesses, parks,
and places of worship--are in harm's way from dangerous exposure to
coal ash.
A 2014 study found that residents in vulnerable zones are
disproportionately African American or Latino, have higher rates of
poverty than the U.S. as a whole, and have lower housing values,
incomes, and education levels. The poverty rate in these zones is 50
percent higher than the national average. The percentage of Blacks is
75 percent greater than for the U.S. as a whole, while the percentage
of Latinos is 60 percent greater. This means that almost half of the
people more likely to suffer from exposure are Black or Latino.
But make no mistake, Madam Chair, coal ash poisoning is not racially
discriminatory. Rural White communities throughout north Georgia, North
Carolina, Tennessee, and Oklahoma are suffering from exposure to coal
ash dumping, leaking coal ash ponds, and coal ash dust from coal ash
transport. We cannot allow people across the country to fall between
the regulatory cracks simply because they live in a certain
neighborhood or have certain income levels.
This amendment requires implementation of the EPA's coal ash rule to
be consistent with Executive Order No. 12898. That executive order's
purpose was to focus Federal attention on the environmental and public
health effects that Federal regulations have on minority and low-income
communities.
More coal ash is expected to be dumped in the State of Georgia. In
Jesup, Georgia, a landfill has agreed to accept over 10,000 tons of
coal ash per day. Duke Energy is moving their coal ash from North
Carolina to a landfill in Banks County, Georgia. Elsewhere within
Georgia, communities have been exposed to contaminated drinking water
by existing coal ash facilities. Last month, arsenic, beryllium, and
selenium were found in the groundwater of various coal ash sites in the
State.
As we saw in Flint, we need to act at the Federal level before our
failure to do so results in irreversible damage to the health and to
the environment of the communities we represent. American families,
regardless of income level, should not be unfairly and unreasonably
exposed to toxic chemicals.
I ask for support for my amendment.
Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, because the gentleman's amendment restates
current law and nothing more, I am more than willing to accept the
amendment.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 19 Offered by Ms. Esty
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. ESTY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 74, line 25, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $10,000,000)''.
Page 76, line 18, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Page 83, line 6, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. Esty) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. ESTY. Madam Chair, my amendment would increase funding by $10
million to match the President's budget request for the State and
Tribal Assistance Grants to clean up and revitalize brownfields.
Too many cities and towns across America with proud manufacturing
legacies are now struggling with vacant brownfield properties. As our
country transitioned away from manufacturing, plants and mills began to
close, leaving too many communities to deal with these industrial sites
on their own.
These former industrial sites have come to be known as brownfields,
land where the presence or potential presence of contamination prevents
expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of the land. Brownfield sites aren't
limited to abandoned factories or buildings. They can also be former
dry cleaning establishments or gas stations that are no longer in use.
Every single congressional district in our Nation has at least one
brownfield site, and some, in fact, have hundreds.
In April, I was in Torrington, Connecticut, a former mill town in my
district where, like many communities in the Naugatuck River Valley,
there are brownfields scattered throughout the city. I met with Mayor
Carbone and other city and local officials to learn about plans to
clean up and repurpose two industrial sites, which would create jobs
and revitalize the downtown area.
{time} 1915
The plan to revitalize downtown Torrington was made possible by
funding provided through the EPA's brownfields grant program. However,
to implement Torrington's transformative plan, we need additional
funding in the brownfields program.
I think it is important to note that addressing brownfields is not
simply an issue for our cities. Expanding funding for brownfields helps
not only our cities, but also our suburbs and agricultural communities.
Cleaning up and putting brownfields back into economic use in our
cities helps preserve open space and surrounding communities by taking
pressure off of demand for virgin or undeveloped land.
Additionally, taxpayer dollars go a long way in the brownfields
program. For every dollar expended by the EPA's brownfields program, it
leverages, on average, approximately $18 in additional public and
private investment and, in many cases, property values have more than
doubled when communities were given the resources necessary to
repurpose brownfield sites.
[[Page H4760]]
According to a 2007 study, approximately 10 jobs are created for
every acre of brownfields redevelopment, and with over 400,000
brownfields sites across the country, the work needed to clean up these
sites is far from complete.
So let's do our job as elected officials by empowering our
constituents with additional funding to clean up contaminated
properties, attract new businesses, create jobs, safeguard public
health, and revitalize our downtowns.
I encourage all of my colleagues to support the Esty amendment.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I certainly understand the value of EPA's
brownfields program. It is highly leveraged and promotes economic
development in communities by cleaning up lightly contaminated
properties and returning them to beneficial use. These are good things,
no doubt about it. That is why the FY 2017 Interior bill continues to
provide the brownfields program with $80 million. That is equal to the
enacted level.
With limited resources, we need to be strategic about where we
provide increases. The FY 2017 bill increases funding to clean up most
toxic contaminated Superfund sites across the Nation.
We will debate some Democratic amendments that seek to increase the
Superfund account beyond what we have done in the bill in order to
match the President's request. Certainly, no one wants to live next to
a Superfund site. We have more than 1,300 sites on the Superfund list.
These sites contain led, arsenic, cadmium, PCBs, and other highly toxic
chemicals. We need to make progress on these 1,300 sites.
So, I must oppose the proposed cut to the Superfund and strongly urge
my colleagues to do the same.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ESTY. Madam Chair, again, with all due respect, I think, as my
colleague has noted, these dollars make an enormous impact, and I would
respectfully request and urge my colleagues to support the Esty
amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I urge opposition to the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Palmer
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. PALMER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 76, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $100,000,000)''.
Page 84, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $100,000,000)''.
Page 184, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Palmer) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. PALMER. Madam Chair, I commend the gentleman from California for
his and his colleagues' work on this bill.
Madam Chair, my amendment would eliminate funding for the Diesel
Emissions Reduction Act grant program, saving taxpayers $100 million.
Funds from this program have gone to a number of questionable items,
including $750,000 for cherry pickers in Utah, $1 million for
electrified parking spaces at a truck stop in Delaware, and $1.2 for a
new engine and generators for a 1950s locomotive in Pennsylvania.
This program was intended to be a short-term effort to assist States
and local governments in meeting diesel emissions standards, but has
joined a long list of temporary government programs for which there is
no end in sight.
As Ronald Reagan famously said that, ``The nearest thing to eternal
life we will ever see on this Earth is a government program.''
One of the things I have learned as a freshman Member of Congress is
that we have an office tasked with holding Federal agencies accountable
and reporting on their programs. That office is the Government
Accountability Office. One of the things that has surprised me is how
rarely we act on their recommendations. I hope that won't be the case
with this program.
The GAO has noted that funding to reduce diesel emissions is
fragmented across 14 programs at the Department of Energy, the
Department of Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Surely we can make do with one less.
The $100 million provided in this bill represents an increase of 100
percent compared to last year's bill and an increase of 100 percent
compared to the omnibus bill passed in December.
With a national debt exceeding $19 trillion, and growing every day,
we cannot afford to double the budget of a program that clearly
duplicates, at least in part, 13 other programs, and has a marginal
impact at best.
The program was originally authorized in the Energy Policy Act of
2005, and was reauthorized for 5 years in 2010. This authorization
expired in fiscal year 2016, making any appropriation an unauthorized
one.
Congress should not provide $100 million for a wasteful and
unauthorized program, and I urge my colleagues to support the
amendment.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, Ronald Reagan was mentioned in discussing
the gentleman's amendment.
Ronald Reagan signed into law CalEPA in the State of California. He
also signed into law the first air quality district to regulate air in
the United States, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, in
the State of California, which was authored by a former colleague of
ours named Jerry Lewis.
Clean air is not a political or partisan issue. Certainly, in my
area, which has some of the dirtiest air in the United States, we have
done a lot to clean up air in our area in California.
We have included a great number of policy provisions to address EPA's
regulatory overreach, which I agree with, in this bill. And we have cut
the EPA's budget dramatically, which I am in favor of doing. However, I
believe that this specific amendment targets a program that is yielding
great benefits. When you have a program that is actually working, we
ought to keep it.
Many counties across the Nation are currently not in containment with
EPA's existing standards for particulate matter and ozone. In many
instances, these counties have been in non-containment for years, and
those communities need help to improve their air quality.
The Diesel Emission Reduction Act grant program, DERA, is a proven,
cost-effective program that provides grants to States to retrofit old
diesel engines. So it is a program that supports manufacturing jobs,
while also reducing pollution significantly.
Another benefit is these grants are highly leveraged, producing $13
of economic benefit for every Federal dollar that is invested in this
program.
Today, newer engines produce 90 percent less toxic emissions than the
older diesel engines. However, only 30 percent of trucks and heavy-duty
vehicles transition to these cleaner technologies. We need to follow
the science and accelerate the replacement of old engines with newer,
cleaner engines.
From fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2013, DERA grant funding has
replaced or retooled almost 59,000 engines in vehicles, trucks, trains,
and other equipment. Again, DERA is an effective, proven program that
is delivering results.
I strongly urge Members to vote ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALMER. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concerns.
[[Page H4761]]
Over the last 30 years or so, the air quality in the United States has
improved dramatically, despite the fact that we have seen huge
increases in vehicle miles traveled, a 30-something percent increase in
our GDP, and a 30-something percent increase in population. Yet, we
have seen dramatic improvement in air quality, and I appreciate the
fact that government programs have had a part to play in that.
In regard to the savings, the EPA has said that for every dollar we
spend, we will get $14 in benefits. I would also like to point out that
they also say that the Clean Power Plan will help the economy and that
EPA regulations haven't lost jobs. I think the EPA estimates on savings
are a little suspect.
The program was funded at $30 million in FY 2015 and $50 million in
2016. Now we are considering a bill to increase it to $100 million in
2017. We cannot afford to continue spending without limits and pretend
as if there are no consequences. Keep in mind that there are 14
programs. Surely, we can consolidate these into one effective program.
I also think it is important to note that this was supposed to expire
after the first authorization. It was reauthorized for 4 more years.
And that expires this year, making any appropriation for FY 2017
another wasteful, unauthorized program.
The Republican Study Committee budget recommended elimination and
noted that the grants have gone to a number of wasteful programs.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I want to point out that DERA is not a
regulatory program. The power plant rule that was mentioned earlier is
a regulatory program.
What DERA does is replace old technology with the new technology that
is up to 90 percent cleaner than the old trucks, old diesel engines
that we are presently using. This is working.
I am not in favor of programs and continuous studies and other
oppressive methods by EPA that don't produce clean air. This does. It
was mentioned that our air is getting cleaner. It is getting cleaner
because of programs like DERA that actually work. It is measurable in
the South Coast Air Quality Management District and other areas
throughout the United States.
They have been able to take these dirty, old trucks off the road. You
have all seen them. You have been on the freeway and you see an old
diesel truck that is putting out more emissions than virtually
everything else around them. You take that truck off the road and it
has immediate results.
So let's not get rid of something that works. Let's work against
these regulatory programs that oppress the economy and don't have any
results.
I might point out, too, the administration has been opposed to DERA.
Most of the environmental folks have been opposed because they don't
want any carbon in the economy. So they don't want us to clean up
diesel because they want to have electric vehicles or zero emission
vehicles, which do not have the horsepower or the ability to deliver
the goods that we need to have in this Nation.
So, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALMER. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. PALMER. In regard to the EPA, the gentleman from California cited
an EPA finding on the benefits and my response to that--that it is not
a regulatory program--but that is beside the fact. What it is, is a
duplication of other programs. It is unauthorized and it is wasteful.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I might point out that the FBI is not
authorized at the present time. We continue to fund it.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PALMER. Madam 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.
Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at
the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 76, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $6,000,000)(reduced by $6,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
{time} 1930
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Madam Chair, last August, the
Environmental Protection Agency was responsible for the blowout at the
Gold King Mine in Colorado that spilled 3 million gallons of
wastewater, impacting New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and the
Navajo Nation.
I was in Farmington, New Mexico, when the toxic plume turned the
Animas River yellow. I met with the community and heard their concerns
about the toll that the spill was taking on businesses, farmers,
families, and individuals.
Madam Chair, we are almost 1 year removed from the spill, and in
communities that have been impacted, there remains serious concerns
about the long-term effects that the spill will have on the river and
all that its water sustains, from drinking water to farming and
livestock.
Long-term water quality monitoring is essential to ensure that
communities along the Animas River have the data they need to protect
the health of all those who rely on this water.
Unfortunately, the State of New Mexico and the EPA have been unable
to agree on what the long-term monitoring should look like. As a
result, the State has moved ahead with a lawsuit against the EPA.
Madam Chair, it is disappointing that it has come to this point of
legal action. My amendment today seeks to address this issue by
providing $6 million to direct the EPA to work with affected States and
Indian Tribes to implement long-term monitoring programs for water
quality on the Animas and San Juan Rivers in response to the Gold King
Mine spill.
The State of New Mexico has worked with stakeholders to develop a
robust monitoring plan that I believe can serve as a basis for a truly
comprehensive effort. Monitoring now and well into the future is
necessary to protect the health of all those who rely on this water,
and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's
remarks. It is important that EPA right the wrong that caused the Gold
King Mine spill, and ensure that the affected States and Tribes have
the resources they need following the spill.
The FY17 bill includes language instructing the EPA to continue to
operate a temporary water treatment plant to treat contaminated flows
in the area until a more permanent water treatment solution is
developed. And the FY16 omnibus instructed EPA to work with the States
and tribes on an independent water monitoring plan.
At this time I must respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment,
but I would also ask the gentleman to work with me as the committee
continues to monitor the implementation and what the EPA is continuing
to do.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Madam Chair, I appreciate the
leadership of the chairman. He has been very
[[Page H4762]]
gracious, he and his staff, with several amendments that are important
to New Mexico during this debate as well.
What has happened now is the temporary facility has been located in
the State of Colorado as well, where this has taken place, where this
blowout took place; but we are still seeing remnants of heavy metals
all the way down to that contamination plume, and it just hasn't been
enough.
I will read something that our Attorney General from the State of New
Mexico recently said.
``The release of hazardous substances into waters that are the
lifeblood of our economy and culture in New Mexico has had a
devastating impact on our historical rural, agricultural and tribal
communities . . . It is inappropriate for the EPA to impose weak
testing standards in New Mexico and I am demanding the highest testing
standards that the EPA would impose in any other state in the nation to
protect the health and well-being of our citizens. Additionally,
remediation and compensation dollars have been far too minimal for
these very special agricultural and cultural communities who depend on
this precious water source for irrigation and drinking water. They must
be properly compensated and there must be appropriate independent
monitoring to prevent future dangers to public health and the
economy.''
Attorney General Hector Balderas.
Mr. Calvert, I really want to be able to get a vote on this one. I
understand the opposition here, but I really want to force this point
home to the EPA and the administration, that what has been put on the
table, which is $2 million, is simply not enough to help us in New
Mexico.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Again, I appreciate what the gentleman is up to. I
wouldn't expect you not to have a vote if you choose to have a vote.
Just know that we are working on this, and we will continue to work on
this. We will continue to work with your office, but at this point I
have to reluctantly oppose the bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Madam Chair, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded
vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mrs. Dingell
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22 printed in
House Report 114-683.
Mrs. DINGELL. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 106, strike lines 8 through 22.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Dingell) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The gentlewoman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. DINGELL. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, my amendment strikes language in the bill that would
exempt a number of potentially damaging activities in our national
forests from full consideration under the National Environmental Policy
Act. Simply put, this sort of language has no place in an
appropriations bill.
Our national forests are a true public legacy that sustains both our
environment and our economy. They provide clean air, clean water,
precious wildlife habitat, and they support approximately 450,000 jobs
throughout the country. We should all be coming together to ensure that
our forests are healthy and that future generations will be able to
enjoy them.
Yet, the language that my amendment proposes to strike could allow
many types of damaging activities to occur in our national forests
without a full review under the National Environmental Policy Act, or
NEPA, as we call it.
NEPA has a simple premise; you look before you leap. This landmark
law gives the public an opportunity to review and comment on actions
proposed by the government, adding unique perspectives to the
evaluation process that highly specialized, mission-driven agencies
might otherwise ignore.
The underlying legislation proposes to make six different activities
in our national forests eligible for a categorical exclusion under
NEPA, which means a full review would not be conducted and the public
would not have the right to be heard.
While some of these activities may be appropriate to consider for a
categorical exclusion, they should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis
and should not automatically be eligible for categorical exclusion, as
this legislation proposes.
As the Council on Environmental Quality has stated: ``Categorical
exclusions are appropriate in many circumstances but should not be
relied on if they thwart the purposes of NEPA, compromising the quality
and transparency of agency decisionmaking or the opportunity for
meaningful public participation.''
I couldn't agree with them more. CEQ was right, and that is exactly
what this bill proposes to do.
As an example, the underlying bill proposes to exclude all activities
related to reducing hazardous fuel loads from a full NEPA review. This
makes little sense. If a hazardous fuel load reduction is not done
properly, it could destroy an entire forest. This is exactly the sort
of activity that should have a thorough and comprehensive NEPA review.
I hope my colleagues will join me in standing up for public
participation in government decisionmaking by supporting this
amendment.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Westerman).
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I must say, as I rise in opposition to
this amendment, that I serve on the Natural Resources Committee with
the gentlewoman from Michigan, and I know that we hold a common idea to
be good stewards of our resources. We just happen to have a difference
of opinion on the best way to do that on this issue, so I must rise in
opposition to her amendment.
Our Nation's forests are in dire health, and Congress must provide
the Forest Service additional tools to allow more management of our
national forest system.
This amendment would needlessly deny the Forest Service an
opportunity to more quickly address a forest system that is overgrown
and prone to wildfire, disease, and insect infestation.
Last summer I was proud to sponsor H.R. 2647, the Resilient Federal
Forest Act, which passed the House with a strong bipartisan majority.
This bill included several provisions to allow the Forest Service to
engage in urgently needed restoration in a more timely fashion.
These are forest stands that are already being destroyed by natural
occurrences; and in order to restore those forest habitats, we have to
act in an urgent and a timely manner.
One specific provision would allow the Forest Service to treat up to
3,000 acres of land at a time under a categorical exclusion from NEPA
within limited circumstances. Some of these circumstances include
treating a forest infected by invasive species, if a forest has been
affected by a natural disaster such as a hurricane or tornado, or if
work is needed to protect a municipal water source.
This provision was based on a carefully crafted provision in the 2014
farm bill that the Forest Service has used successfully to reduce the
threat of catastrophic wildfire in our rural communities. I am pleased
that Chairman Calvert chose to include this provision in the fiscal
year 2017 Interior Appropriations bill.
The Natural Resources Committee has heard testimony from stakeholders
[[Page H4763]]
across the country about the dire need to better manage our forests. We
have heard from the Forest Service that nearly 60 million acres of land
are in need of some form of treatment. While we wait for the Senate to
act on wildfire legislation, we must continue to seek opportunities to
help reduce the threat of wildfire to communities across the country.
This amendment would strip this important provision from the
appropriations bill. We should be doing more to shorten the timeframe
for the Forest Service to engage in restoration work. I urge my
colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment.
Mrs. DINGELL. Madam Chair, I want to quickly respond to the comments
made by my dear friend. We are good friends, and we all do need to work
together to protect our great lands in this country, but I would
respectfully disagree. I have nothing but the utmost respect for both
of my Republican colleagues that I hate disagreeing with, and we agree
on the same goal, but I respectfully disagree on your disagreeing on my
amendment.
Some of these activities may be appropriate for a categorical
exclusion, but that should be decided by the agency on a case-by-case
basis, not be dictated by Congress, which you tell us many times, in an
appropriations bill.
Make no mistake, mandating the use of categorical exclusions, like
this bill proposes, is simply a ruse to make an end run around NEPA and
the public process that is so important to it.
We often hear that NEPA is a scapegoat for projects being delayed,
and I would not want that to be the case; but GAO and others have found
that outside issues, including the complexity of the project, local
opposition and, most importantly, funding issues, are almost always the
cause of the delays.
We shouldn't be limiting public comments and involvement in
government decisions, but, instead, should be enhancing them. This bill
does the opposite, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I just want to make a point. At this time
there are about 66 million dead and dying trees in my State. It is
estimated that over the next few years, we could lose up to 120 million
trees. That is 20 percent of the entire State of California's total.
The trees are dying from drought, severe insect and disease
infestation, which only intensifies the potential for disastrous and
potentially catastrophic fires.
Unfortunately, we have already seen the loss of life and property
from the fast-moving wildfires this year, just most recently, right in
the Majority Leader's Congressional District, where people,
unfortunately, lost their lives.
I have worked with the senior Senator from California on this. We
have used this to the benefit of our State, and other States have used
it to the benefit of theirs. This provision is truly limited in nature.
{time} 1945
It can only be used on small acreages about 3,000 acres or less.
Madam Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. DINGELL. Madam Chair, 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 Michigan
will be postponed.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chairwoman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Chaffetz) for the purpose of colloquy.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, Federal land management agencies are
biting off more than they can chew. Not only are these agencies tasked
with managing one-third of the entire landmass in the United States of
America, but they are also asked to provide law enforcement and police
support to some 660 million acres on the Federal estate.
Land management agencies should not be in the business of policing.
Currently, the Nation's largest land management agency, the Bureau of
Land Management, has just one office--one person--per 1 million acres
of Federal land. This is an inadequate system that does not serve the
public, Federal lands, or local communities very well.
Local county sheriffs, on the other hand, and local law enforcement
deputies are in a better position to police lands within their county.
These individuals are known by members of their community. They are
trusted, they are better equipped, and there are more of them. Already
local law enforcement agencies contract with the Federal Government to
carry out the very same law enforcement functions that Federal agencies
require. We need to expand this concept and take actions to limit the
role of land management agency law enforcement officials.
Madam Chair, I believe we must work to transfer authorities and,
ultimately, funding to those local jurisdictions and sheriffs. There
will come a time when the Appropriations Committee will play a key role
in executing this strategy. I request that the chairman work with
Chairman Rob Bishop of the Committee on Natural Resources, me, and
other Members to accomplish this important policy change.
Mr. CALVERT. Reclaiming my time, I am pleased the gentleman has
raised this issue. It is important to work together to ensure law
enforcement arrangements are best suited to the populations they serve.
I appreciate the gentleman's dedication to this issue, and I look
forward to working together to assess the role of law enforcement.
Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 23 will
not be offered.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 24 printed in House
Report 114-683.
Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Cartwright
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, and
I ask that it be considered.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike section 425.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chair, this amendment is very simple. It strikes section 425 of
H.R. 5538. Section 425 would prohibit the EPA from updating the
definition of the terms ``fill material'' or ``discharge of fill
material'' under the Clean Water Act.
These definitions underlie section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which
governs dredge and fill permitting, one of the act's most important
components. Put more simply, section 425 would continue giving real
legal cover to mountaintop mining companies to dump mining waste into
valley streams. As such, section 425 is an attack on the Clean Water
Act.
Now, mountaintop mining for coal produces a lot of unusable excess
material, known as overburden. The cheapest and easiest way for
industry to dispose of overburden is to bulldoze it into valleys and
waterways surrounding these decapitated mountains. This had been
illegal because the Clean Water Act categorized overburden as waste,
which cannot be disposed of in that manner. However, in a 2002 giveaway
to the mountaintop mining industry, the George W. Bush administration
reclassified overburden as fill. This cleared the path for it to be
dumped in mountain valleys once teeming with life.
As if mining overburden were not enough, the definition of fill was
expanded to also include material such as wood chips, construction
debris, and plastic. As a result, every year, 120 miles of headwater
streams are buried in mining debris. These so-called valley fills can
be more than 1 mile long, each, and hundreds of feet deep.
[[Page H4764]]
This overburden doesn't just take up space; it is also an
environmental hazard. Mining debris can contain chemicals and toxins
that pose health risks to humans and ecosystems alike. For example,
studies have found substantially higher levels of selenium, a mineral
that is toxic to fish in high doses, in rivers near mountaintop mine
sites. These hazardous substances also pose real dangers to the
downstream users of the water.
Overburden dumping and the mining that causes it produce soil erosion
and waterway siltation. A 2008 EPA study found that 90 percent of the
streams downstream of surface mining had impaired aquatic life. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the loss of forest and
aquatic habitat to mountaintop mining affects almost 250 species,
including several listed species.
This practice also destroys an archetypal American landscape, one
which gave rise to a unique culture which has shaped generations of
Appalachian residents and which has left its imprint on the broader
American culture.
Allowing mountaintop mining operations to continue dumping their
waste into our Nation's streams and rivers is both dangerous and
irresponsible. I urge my colleagues to join me in putting an end to it.
Allow EPA to do their work and protect the environment and the public's
health. Support my amendment striking section 425.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chairman, the language in section 425 simply
maintains the status quo regarding the definition of fill material for
purposes of the Clean Water Act. The existing definition was put in
place through a rulemaking initiated by the Clinton administration and
finalized by the Bush administration. That rule harmonized the
definition on the books of the Corps and EPA so both agencies were
working within the same definition.
Any attempts to redefine this important definition could
significantly negatively impact the ability of all earthmoving
industries--road and highway construction and private and commercial
enterprise--to obtain vital CWA section 404 permits.
Changing the definition of fill material could result in the loss of
up to 375,000 high-paying mining jobs and jeopardize over 1 million
jobs that are dependent upon the economic output generated by these
operations.
For these reasons, I support the underlying language and oppose the
amendment.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Madam Chairwoman, the gentleman's points are well
taken that the status quo is preserved, and that is the problem.
Section 425 would prohibit any change in the status quo and would
prohibit the EPA from updating the definitions of the terms ``fill
material'' or ``discharge of fill material'' under the Clean Water Act,
thereby hamstringing the EPA from making any kind of sensible updating
of those terms. Any attempt at this point to enumerate the number of
jobs that could be lost in some as yet undefined change of those terms
simply lacks credibility at this point.
There is no point in hamstringing the EPA in this fashion by refusing
to allow any further clarification of the terms ``fill material'' or
``discharge of fill material.''
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chairwoman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).
Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Madam Chairman, I do also rise in
opposition to this amendment. As a Member representing southern West
Virginia, I know firsthand the effect a rewrite of the fill material
regulations would have on coal mining operations. What this amendment
would do would freeze operations and lead to even further layoffs on
top of the more than 10,000 jobs we have lost in just the last 5 years.
As the chairman referenced, in last year's omnibus, Congress
included--Congress included--similar legislation preventing the EPA and
the Corps of Engineers from changing the definition of fill material.
Unfortunately, redefining fill material would harm both existing and
future operations in the coal mining business, resulting in the loss of
thousands of good jobs.
Congress should include this provision to prohibit the EPA from
changing the definition of fill material, and I urge opposition.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Carter of Georgia). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mrs. Lawrence
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mrs. LAWRENCE. 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:
Page 147, strike lines 10 through 21.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentlewoman
from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that
would strike section 427 from the underlying bill.
My amendment would preserve the Army Corps of Engineers' and the
Environmental Protection Agency's final rule that revises regulations
and defines the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act.
More than 1 million public comments were submitted during this process,
a majority of which support the waters of the United States rule. In
issuing the final rule, the agencies' intention was to clarify
questions of the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction, consistent with the
agencies' scientific and technical expertise.
One in three Americans rely on public drinking water systems not
previously protected by the Clean Water Act. This rule changes that.
The water crisis in Flint, Michigan, and the crumbling drinking water
infrastructure in neighborhoods and communities around the country
reinforces the need to protect our streams, ponds, and wetlands. These
challenges impact millions of lives and disproportionately affect poor
and minority communities.
Our country faces a very difficult choice. We can either overlook the
challenges facing our existing water infrastructure and the millions of
lives it affects and the billions of dollars that it costs us, or we
can all work together to find solutions that ensure that all Americans
have access to safe, clean, and affordable drinking water.
The waters of the United States rule is a commonsense reform designed
to secure our water sources, while guaranteeing protections to millions
of Americans.
{time} 2000
This rule represents a commitment to protecting and restoring the
national water resources that are vital for our health, environment,
and economy.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Cartwright
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 27
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Lowey), I offer amendment No. 27.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 149, strike lines 3 through 17.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
[[Page H4765]]
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
My amendment would strike section 429, which delays implementation of
the EPA's lead renovation, repair, and painting rule.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, at least 4 million
households have children who are exposed to high levels of lead. This
includes 535,000 children younger than the age of 5. The problem is
particularly prevalent in low-income communities.
Yet, even as lead poisoning is a front page news story, the majority
ignores another threat from lead and paint. There is no safe blood
level of lead for children. That is why it is so imperative that we do
everything we can to help families avoid lead poisoning.
The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed reasonable
requirements for workers to train and follow lead-safe work practices.
It is important to mention that the rule does not apply to do-it-
yourselfers or those making improvements to newer homes.
Opponents argue that when EPA first proposed the rule back in 2008,
the rule offered a training exemption for those contractors who used an
EPA-approved test kit that meets specific criteria. There are now three
EPA recognized test kits available on the market.
In light of the tragedy in Flint, Michigan, it is unfathomable that
this bill would actively strip one of EPA's tools for addressing lead
paint in homes. If we do not remove this harmful rider, we are choosing
to endanger the health of our children.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, the Lowey 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, let me be clear, the language in the bill
does not block EPA's implementation of the rule.
To date, EPA has not yet approved a test kit that meets the false
positive and false negative standards. It is yet another example of EPA
finalizing a rule with unattainable standards.
Therefore, the FY17 bill prompts the EPA to finish what it intended
to do 7 years ago--approve a lead test kit as an alternative to costly
third-party lab testing so as to prevent delays and reduce the cost of
in-home renovations. Otherwise, EPA should solicit formal public
comment on alternatives. The language in the bill prevents EPA from
collecting fines for paperwork and recordkeeping violations until EPA
solicits public comments on alternatives.
It is straightforward, commonsense language. As such, I urge a ``no''
vote on the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Chair how much time I
have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Israel).
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished friend from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Lowey amendment.
This amendment would strike a provision of the bill that waives part
of the EPA's lead renovation, repair, and painting rule.
Mr. Chairman, after Flint, we have become more aware of the growing
need to protect our communities from the devastating impacts of lead
exposure. According to the CDC, at least 4 million households have
children who are exposed to high levels of lead, especially in low-
income communities.
EPA's rule has been in effect since 2008, so why now, 8 years later,
is the majority trying to undermine these protections? Why now? Why
after Flint?
Mr. Chairman, lead paint is still present in millions of homes. Now
is not the time, it is absolutely the wrong time, to give industry a
pass at the expense of America's children.
I urge adoption of the amendment to protect the health and well-being
of the American people.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from New York for
those important words.
Either we protect our children from lead paint or we don't.
Mr. Chairman, I don't think anybody here would want to live in a home
or send their children to a school that was renovated by a company that
recklessly did not have lead-safe training. We owe it to our children
and grandchildren to take every step possible to prevent harmful lead
exposure.
Vote for my amendment, vote for the Lowey amendment, to improve this
bill and help ensure that fewer children will suffer lead poisoning.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, again, we are talking about an agency that
can't even get a test right after 7 years. Until they do that, it is
yet another example of EPA finalizing a rule with unattainable
standards.
I oppose this amendment, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. 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 Pennsylvania
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Becerra
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 28
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. BECERRA. 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:
Page 149, strikes lines 18 through 25.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Becerra) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes section 430 from the
underlying bill. Section 430 blocks efforts by the Environmental
Protection Agency to ensure that industries which handle hazardous
substances set aside sufficient funds, in the form of bonds or
insurance, to clean up toxic spills or releases that are attributable
to their hazardous activities.
Under current law, the EPA is required to set financial
responsibility requirements for industries at high risk of polluting
the environment to the point of creating these toxic Superfund sites.
Congress required the EPA to establish financial responsibility
requirements to ensure that taxpayers do not have to pay for the cost
of cleaning up contaminated sites.
Communities across America experience firsthand what it is like to
live and breathe through the contamination of a serial polluter. Right
now, thousands of people in my hometown of Los Angeles are living
through this very nightmare. After nearly 30 years of operating a lead
recycling battery plant, Exide Technologies in the Los Angeles area
shut its operations down after contaminating some 10,000 thousand homes
with lead--let me repeat that--10,000 homes with lead in the Los
Angeles area.
It has been more than a year since Exide shut down this plant and we
still don't know who will foot the bill for cleaning those nearly
10,000 homes with each home carrying up to a $40,000 price tag to get
cleaned up. A $40,000 price tag, 10,000 homes--do the math--$400
million. And that $400 million only deals with the cleanup, it doesn't
deal with the health effects that those 10,000-plus people will have to
deal with for their children and for themselves having suffered from
the contamination of lead in and around their property.
Mr. Chairman, section 430 lets polluters off the hook and leaves the
American taxpayer on the hook for cleaning up their messes. I don't
believe the American people intend for American taxpayers to have to
take on the cost of cleaning up someone else's pollution.
That is why I have introduced this amendment to strike section 430
from
[[Page H4766]]
the bill, so that polluters, not American taxpayers, take the
responsibility for cleaning up their mess.
I urge passage of my amendment to ensure that polluters, not
taxpayers, clean up their pollution.
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, unfortunately, EPA is under a court order
to propose a rule by December 2016, according to a suit brought by the
environmentalists, to compel EPA to move forward with more regulation
on a schedule they dictate.
BLM, the Forest Service, and the States already impose financial
assurance regulations. Therefore, any EPA regulations proposed would be
duplicative.
The Western Governors' Association, along with others, have indicated
a willingness to work together to ensure that there aren't gaps in the
existing regulatory framework so such requirements remain protective.
Therefore, there already is a process in place, and language that has
been included in the bill, to alleviate the need for EPA to expend
taxpayer resources to develop yet another set of duplicative rules.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, section 430 in this bill provides a blanket prohibition
of the EPA having the opportunity to make sure that financial
responsibility requirements are imposed on polluters. There may be some
provisions in this bill to try to deal with some of these aspects of
pollution, but there is nothing that would require the polluter to show
financial responsibility if we don't get rid of section 430.
Therefore, in this bill, we would essentially be making lawful
polluters polluting communities and not having to take responsibility
for cleaning them up. I don't believe the American people, and
certainly not American taxpayers, are expecting Congress to be passing
bills that put the burden on taxpayers to clean up someone else's
pollution.
Beyond the cost of the pollution is the cost to our families.
Children who are infected by lead contamination could suffer a
permanent effect. I think that we want to make sure we are providing
our children and our families with every bit of safety they expect,
especially when they had no responsibility for the contamination of the
pollution that exists in their neighborhoods.
I urge my colleagues to consider this amendment which simply would
strike this provision so that EPA can do the work that we expect it to
do, and that is to preserve the safety and health of our communities by
making sure if you are going to have a business that pollutes, that you
be responsible for cleaning it up.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I encourage opposition to this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chair, if a business pollutes, then it is the
responsibility of that business, not the taxpayer, to pay for the
cleanup. It is that simple and it is morally right and fair.
I represent Vernon, California, where a lead-acid battery recycling
plant, for years, blanketed families in and around Vernon with lead,
arsenic, and other toxins.
The plant eventually closed but tragically, its environmental damage
remains, leaving an estimated 10,000 contaminated homes.
Because there are no clear requirements for financial responsibility,
the response to the lead contamination in my district was delayed, and
after more than a year, it still has not been resolved. Families living
in these areas continue to live in fear for their children while others
struggle to care for children who, as a result of this contamination,
are suffering from learning disabilities, cancer and other health
related issues.
To allow section 430 to prohibit the EPA from issuing financial
responsibility requirements for businesses that handle hazardous
substances which can pollute our communities across the country is
madness, Mr. Speaker.
We must pass this amendment to ensure that polluters who cheat the
system pay the bill, not the American taxpayer.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BECERRA. 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 California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Peters
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No 29
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone), I offer amendment No. 29.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 150, strike line 1 and all that follows through page
151, line 2.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Peters) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, everyone who doesn't deny the science
understands that climate change is real and dangerous. Uncontrolled
carbon pollution is going into the atmosphere, trapping more heat, and
warming the planet.
Americans are experiencing the results in every part of this country.
From more devastating fires in the West, including San Diego, to
flooding in West Virginia, to coastal erosion in superstorms along the
east coast, we are experiencing climate change today and it is getting
worse.
{time} 2015
We have a choice--pretend it is not happening and abandon future
generations, or start to clean up the carbon pollution that is driving
climate change.
As President Obama recently said: ``Climate change is no longer some
far-off problem. It is happening here. It is happening now.''
We can't wait for some future generation to take action. To that end,
the EPA finalized a workable plan to reduce carbon emissions from power
plants, which are the largest uncontrolled source of man-made
greenhouse gases in the United States.
The Clean Power Plan gives the States tremendous flexibility to
choose how to achieve those reductions. The goals are State-specific
and cost-effective. This is a moderate and reasonable approach that
ensures flexibility, affordability, reliability, and investment in
clean energy technologies; and polls show that the public supports the
Clean Power Plan by large majorities. It outlines a path to cleaner
air, better health, a safer climate, and a stronger economy. If we make
these investments in cleaner energy, the United States can be the world
leader in industries of the future.
The majority wants to stop this. They want to deny the science,
pretend climate change isn't happening, and let power plants keep
spewing carbon pollution without control. They refuse to act to limit
carbon pollution, and now they are outraged that President Obama is
keeping his word and using his authority under the Clean Air Act to act
because we in Congress won't. So they included language in the
underlying bill that aims to block the implementation of the Clean
Power Plan and the EPA's carbon pollution standards for new and
modified power plants. This is a ``just say `no''' agenda. My amendment
strikes the harmful rider from the bill.
Let's not heed the arguments on behalf of companies that profit from
the status quo. These are defeatist arguments. They aren't interested
in developing a plan to help us reduce emissions while maintaining a
reasonably and reliably priced electricity system. We have already
wasted enough time on legislation to ``just say `no''' to climate
action. Now Congress must move on. What we cannot do, as President
Obama said, is ``condemn our children to a planet beyond their capacity
to repair it.''
[[Page H4767]]
I strongly urge my colleagues to support my amendment. The Clean
Power Plan is an important, long overdue, and critical tool in our
fight against global climate change.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, the Supreme Court has ruled on a number of
occasions that the EPA does not have the authority to rewrite the Clean
Air Act, as it has been attempting to do. In February, the Supreme
Court issued a stay on the EPA's greenhouse gas rule. It is no surprise
that the EPA finds itself on shaky legal ground as it attempts to rely
on limited authorities to write a rule that would vastly expand its
reach.
This administration's policies, regulations, and rhetoric are all
aimed at making energy more expensive in America. The administration
cannot be allowed to change the laws of the land administratively,
which is why the language in this bill should remain in this bill.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment to strike.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California (Mr. Peters) has 2\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Israel).
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment.
The effects of climate change are real, and they are being felt by
Americans every day. NASA says that climate change is causing drought
and increased forest fire frequency in the West, flooding in the
Midwest, declining water supplies in the Southeast. Ninety-seven
percent of all climate experts agree that human activity, specifically
the combustion of fossil fuels and the release of carbon into the
atmosphere, is changing our climate; yet this Congress continues to
deny that there is a crisis, and it refuses to take the action that is
necessary to protect the safety, the health, and the well-being of our
constituents.
Mr. Chair, the standards that the administration has proposed are
just about protecting the health of our children and putting this
Nation on a path to a 30 percent reduction in carbon pollution from the
power sector by 2030.
We cannot continue to deny that there is something happening with our
weather. We cannot continue to deny that there is something happening
with our climate nor can we continue to deny that, if we do this right,
we will create a new generation of jobs and careers in new
technologies. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).
Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chair, we, as a country, should be
pursuing a true all-of-the-above approach to energy-electricity
generation. Unfortunately, this administration's power plant rules
would pick winners and losers. It would determine the market for coal,
cost miners their jobs, and raise energy prices for all Americans.
The EPA has exceeded its legal authority by double regulating coal-
fired power plants and by forcing States to fundamentally shift their
energy portfolios away from coal. It sets standards for new coal-fired
power plants that are based on technologies which have not even been
proven to be commercially available.
While this administration is using every regulatory effort that is
possible to put our hardworking coal miners in the unemployment line,
we are pushing back here on the Appropriations Committee. We included
this important provision in this bill to protect miners, to protect
families, and to protect businesses and our economy.
The chairman is exactly right when he references the United States
Supreme Court. The other side would simply take casually the fact that
there is no legal authority for the administration to pursue the rules
and regulations like in this particular case. It is critically
important that we oppose this amendment.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, I understand the gentleman's concern about
coal. Without the implementation of the Clean Power Plan, coal has been
affected by the market, not by the EPA, and the availability of natural
gas has certainly, I think, hurt the coal industry. I understand that,
but this is a sensible approach to dealing with air quality and climate
change; and I urge my colleagues to support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to 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. Peters).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PETERS. 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 California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Peters
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 30
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 152, strike lines 14 through 24.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Peters) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, my amendment would strike section 434, a
harmful policy rider that limits the ability of our environmental
agencies to take action to improve public health and to fight the root
causes of climate change.
If we are to lower the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, we need
Federal action. The largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the
United States is from burning fossil fuels, which raises atmospheric
levels of CO2. Greenhouse gas emissions can affect coastal
regions, energy, defense, food supplies, wildfire preparedness, and our
quality of life.
This rider blocks the Environmental Protection Agency's ongoing
efforts to reduce the damage that hydrofluorocarbons do to our climate.
Hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, are factory-made gasses that are used in
air-conditioning and refrigeration and are up to 10,000 times more
potent pound for pound than carbon dioxide.
While not as abundant as carbon dioxide, super pollutants, like HFCs
and methane, have contributed up to 40 percent of observed global
warming. Unless we act now, the United States' HFC emissions are
expected to double by 2020 and to triple by 2030.
By limiting the EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act to propose,
finalize, or enforce any regulation or guidance regarding HFCs, this
rider would undercut its ability to protect public health and to
demonstrate American leadership in emissions reductions.
The EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy Program, or SNAP,
requires us to evaluate substitutes that are already being developed by
industry for super pollutants like HFCs. Through SNAP, we can ensure a
more smooth transition to safer alternatives for our country's
industrial sector. Last year, the SNAP finalized a new rule on HFCs
that the Environmental Investigation Agency estimates will reduce
emissions by 2030 by the equivalent of taking 21 million cars off the
road.
The standards set by the EPA will drive U.S. and international
innovation and the market development of low-emission and energy-
efficient refrigeration, air-conditioning, foam blowing agents, and
aerosol technologies. These innovations will actually get at one of the
root causes of climate change before we are forced to react to
increasingly extreme weather and sea level rise.
By embracing these forward-thinking proposals, we can tackle the low-
hanging fruit while adopting alternatives that are actually much more
energy efficient than current HFCs. This is one
[[Page H4768]]
example of how embracing the clean energy revolution doesn't just limit
damage to our climate but also increases America's competitiveness and
creates economic opportunity. Last year, we saw major companies,
including Coca-Cola, Carrier, DuPont, Honeywell, PepsiCo, and other
industry leaders commit to voluntarily reducing harmful HFC emissions.
I appreciate the concerns of some in the industry about the pace at
which they are required to transition to lower emission materials, but
the answer to that is not to halt this process entirely. Preventing the
SNAP program from functioning when less harmful materials are being
developed is not the right approach. My amendment strikes this
shortsighted rider so that America can continue to be a leader in
advancing innovative solutions to reducing our emissions. We should not
be handcuffing the important work being done at the EPA to reduce super
pollutants. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, last year, the EPA issued a final rule to
disqualify many refrigerants and other chemicals. The rule contained
aggressive deadlines for the phase-out of many chemicals. Some of those
deadlines applied within 6 months. Historical experience with the
Montreal Protocol indicated that manufacturers needed 6-plus years to
successfully transition between new materials.
It is nice if the Fortune 100 companies, as the gentleman mentioned,
are able to quickly transfer their technologies, but a lot of Main
Street people can't. They just simply go broke. Clearly, the EPA chose
winners and losers, and for the losers, the timelines are absolutely
unworkable. Manufacturers need time to implement engineering and
technology changes and to address new risk and safety challenges.
No sooner did the EPA finalize its regulation last year to disqualify
certain products than the EPA initiated version 2.0--that the
rulemaking is now in the works. This is truly an out-of-control process
that is driven by the White House's agenda.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, I take the gentleman's point. I would just say
again that, if there are concerns about the timeline, I would be more
than willing to work--and I am sure my colleagues would--on a better
timeline, but stopping all activity is not the answer. That is why I
think this is the appropriate response; so I urge my colleagues to
support the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose 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. Peters).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Peters
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 31
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 154, strike line 22 and all that follows through page
155, line 8.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Peters) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, the social--or real--cost of carbon is the
monetary estimate of the damages caused by carbon dioxide emissions to
the environment, health, and economic growth.
Today's bill contains an unnecessary and harmful policy rider that
would delay, indefinitely, incorporating that cost in rulemaking or
guidance documents. My amendment would strike that bad rider and would,
instead, put us on a path of responsible policymaking that reflects the
realities of changing climates and increasingly extreme weather events.
{time} 2030
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's bipartisan Risky
Business report notes that accounting for the real cost of carbon
emissions and preparing for climate change is a smart business
practice.
If we continue on our current path, by 2050, between $66 billion and
$106 billion worth of existing coastal property will likely be below
sea level nationwide. Eighty percent of California's GDP is derived
from our coastal counties.
Greenhouse gas-driven changes in temperature by burning fossil fuels
will necessitate construction of new power generation that Mayor
Bloomberg's report estimates will cost residential and commercial
ratepayers as much as $12 billion per year. That is $12 billion that
could be spent by families to put their kids through school or to buy a
home. It could be spent by businesses to hire more employees or give
annual bonuses.
Accounting for the social cost of carbon now provides greater
certainty and greater freedom in the future.
I anticipate my colleagues in opposition to this amendment will
suggest that the harmful rider merely delays using the social cost of
carbon until a new working group can update the data we use to guide
rulemaking. In practice, this would send this rule back to the drawing
board when the data we have now about how carbon emissions damage our
economy and our health is perfectly adequate and backed by peer-
reviewed science.
By adding more layers of bureaucracy, this rider rejects a forward-
thinking approach already used by the private sector and backed by
science in favor of the status quo, in favor of doing nothing.
There is a real cost to our environment and our prosperity associated
with delaying this rule. For too long we have heard that we have had to
choose between supporting prosperity and a clean environment. The
implication is we can't have both, but that is a false choice we can't
afford to make. We have to provide both economic opportunity and clean
water and air for future generations.
I want to take a cue from the private sector, from businesses that
already account for the cost of carbon, and let's be sensible and
support this amendment.
I want to thank my friends--Congressman Polis, Congressman Lowenthal,
Congresswoman Esty, Congressman Beyer, and Congressman Welch--for
backing this effort.
I urge my colleagues to support this 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, I have long been concerned with how the
EPA conducts its cost-benefit analysis to justify its rulemaking. This
is something that the committee has discussed with the EPA on a number
of occasions. The Supreme Court recently ruled that EPA's approach to
examining costs in their regulations was, at the least, flawed.
The administration's revised estimates for the social cost of carbon
help justify, on paper, larger benefits from reducing carbon emissions
in any proposed rule. If the administration can inflate the price tag
so that the benefits always exceed the costs, then the administration
can gold plate required regulations from any department or any agency.
Section 436 says that the administration should reconvene a working
group to revise the estimates in a more transparent manner and to make
that information available to the public.
I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote
``no.''
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lowenthal).
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, the majority has repeatedly brought
bills to this same House floor that add
[[Page H4769]]
requirements for Federal agencies to use more cost-benefit analyses;
but now, when we are dealing with climate change, we are told that we
should remove requirements to honestly consider the cost of climate
change.
Which way do you want it? Is cost-benefit analysis only a good thing
when it suits the majority's purpose to slow regulation and a bad thing
when it may shed some light on the true cost of our carbon-based
actions?
Ignoring the facts because we don't like them won't make the problem
go away. Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are causing
climate change with profound monetary costs for our health,
infrastructure, food security, and national security.
Let's bring more information and transparency into the Federal
rulemaking process by using the social cost of carbon to quantify those
costs. That way we can understand the risks and make sound investments
in our Nation's future.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Polis).
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, this is ironic because we hear from
Republicans all the time about the importance of cost-benefit analyses
before this regulation, before that regulation. Well, of course, we
acknowledge and I acknowledge that there are costs to regulation with
regard to emissions, there is no doubt. There are also benefits.
I have a tourism-dependent district. We have great ski areas like
Vail, Breckenridge. Well, guess what. That is climate dependent. We
have agriculture in my district--climate dependent.
You know what? I would also acknowledge, of course, all the costs,
all the benefits, those are estimates.
You know, what? No model is perfect, but I guarantee you that the
model is far superior to just throwing it out altogether and having no
model. There are real costs to carbon emissions, and it is
completely appropriate to use the best science-driven data to estimate
those in any type of regulation.
It is important to look at costs as benefits, and I feel we are
making the argument our Republican friends usually make. But here, in
this case, they don't happen to like these particular costs. Maybe they
don't think they are real. Maybe they don't believe in them. But we let
science guide us.
The fact that I have a weather-dependent district and we have a
climate-dependent economy across our country is powerful testimony
towards including the social cost of carbon.
I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).
Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chair, folks, here is what is going
on: the EPA and other Federal agencies are increasingly using this
thing called social cost of carbon in their environmental rulemaking.
So what is social cost of carbon? It is an ambiguous and confusing
matrix that has been used simply to justify the validity of many of the
administration's clean air environmental regulations that target the
direct and indirect carbon dioxide emissions from various sources.
Since its very first use, the administration has recalculated the
models multiple times in order to inflate the supposed cost of small
increases in CO2 in the atmosphere and, thus, supposed
benefits.
What is most outrageous is that the administration, which the
minority here says is just simply trying to put in the economic
factors, is actually ignoring the Office of Management and Budget's
circular A-4, which explicitly states that ``a real discount rate of 7
percent should be used as a base-case for regulatory analysis.''.''
Guess what. They ran the numbers. Seven percent doesn't get them what
they need from the social costs, so what they do is ignore OMB and come
up with their own factors. That is the deceptive nature of their
supposed cost factor. Change the underlying assumptions, change the
factors, get the results you want that justify your findings.
Folks, that is not how we should be doing it. I strongly urge
opposition to this amendment.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, again, I think the
gentleman makes an excellent point that 7 percent is a pretty
aggressive discount rate and maybe we should talk about the
methodology. But what we should not do is prevent the discussion in its
entirety, which is what that language does.
So I hope that my colleagues will support our amendment and that we
will be able to get it right. We can agree on a methodology that fairly
represents this issue, and I would be happy to work with my colleague.
I hope they will support my amendment so we can, at least, have this
discussion.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, this is voodoo environmentalism, so I
would absolutely have opposition to 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. Peters).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PETERS. 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 California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Grijalva
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 32
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. GRIJALVA. 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:
Page 155, strike lines 9 through 15.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise to speak on behalf of the amendment that I have offered to
protect farmworkers throughout this Nation.
Every day, farmworkers work long hours under the scorching sun in one
of the most dangerous industries in this country, and they suffer the
highest rates of chemical injuries and skin disorders due to pesticide
exposure. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that up to
3,000 farmworkers suffer acute pesticide poisoning every year through
their work-related exposure.
Every year, an estimated 1.1 billion pounds of pesticides are applied
to agricultural crops in the United States. According to the EPA,
10,000 to 20,000 farmworkers suffer pesticide poisoning annually.
Exposure to pesticides increases the risk of chronic health problems
amongst adult and child farmworkers, such as cancer, infertility,
neurological disorders, and respiratory conditions.
There are approximately half a million child farmworkers in the U.S.,
and farmworker children face increased risks of cancer and birth
defects. It should be noted that this workplace, in the farms and
working crops, is the only area in this country where child labor laws
do not apply. Should we then increase the children's risk and exposure
because they are not covered by a law that covers the rest of the
children in this country?
Research also shows that both farmworkers and their children may
suffer decreased intellectual functioning from even low levels of
exposure to insecticides, which are widely used in agriculture.
After more than 20 years, the Environmental Protection Agency finally
made the long overdue updates to the worker protection standards for
farmworkers. The standards provide basic workplace protections to
farmworkers to reduce harmful exposures and result in fewer pesticide-
related injuries, illnesses, birth defects, and deaths among
farmworkers and their family members.
Farmworkers play a critical role in our economy, ensuring that our
constituents have nutritious, quality food
[[Page H4770]]
on their tables. The 2017 Department of the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriation Act contains a harmful provision,
section 437, that will remove farmworkers' rights to a designated
representative.
A designated representative in this process is a critical part of
improving access to pesticide information for workers in various
situations. There are times when a worker may need the help of a
spouse, family member, or coworker to obtain information. For instance,
if a worker is injured or hurt and cannot be there in person, the
information could be requested by the treating medical personnel. This
standard is in practice in other sectors where workers are exposed to
toxic substances and is consistent with the access to exposure records
that those workers now have.
To protect the health of those who harvest the food for our
constituents and put it on our tables, it is critical to have a uniform
Federal standard that applies to all workers, and that is the right to
have a designated representative.
In the amendment that I offer, I would simply strike section 437 in
order to protect farmworkers' rights and also provide health
protections.
I urge my colleagues to support the Grijalva-Sanchez amendment to
strike section 437. This amendment is important to the health and
safety of farmworkers and their families. We must ensure that
farmworkers can appropriately access information on pesticides so they
can protect themselves and their families while doing their jobs that
are so vital to our Nation and to our economy.
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, prior to finalizing the worker protection
rule, the EPA shared a draft with the House Committee on Agriculture.
The draft did not contain a section that authorized the use of
designated representatives. It was later inserted by the EPA without
congressional consultation, and the EPA failed to follow the law that
requires consultation with the authorizers on these pesticide rules.
However, the broader concern is the substance of the rule. Farmers
are concerned they will have little recourse but to turn over their
documents to unauthorized individuals. The section of the rule is ill-
advised, and unintended consequences were clearly not considered. The
EPA needs to reengage with the authorizing committee and the
agricultural community on this.
In the meantime, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 2045
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, at the urging of many organizations, and
at the urging of being consistent and uniform with the protections
extended to workers who work with toxic substances throughout this
country, which includes the provision that a representative may
represent the interests, seek information, and provide transparency for
that worker in order for them to pursue their health and their safety.
I think this section, the worker protection section, if we strike
this section, all we are doing is making the process uniform for every
industry. To deny farmworkers, and more particularly children, as I
mentioned, that is the only workplace sector in which the child labor
laws do not apply, to provide them, their families, and children with
the simple ability to be treated like every other worker, in every
other industry, that deals with toxic substances, I think, is just
merely playing a fair game, treating all workers equally, and in this
instance, this amendment would be consistent with what is going on in
the rest of the Nation and the protections extended to all workers.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to 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. Grijalva).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. 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. 33 Offered by Mr. Polis
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 33
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an excellent amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 156, strike line 23 and all that follows through page
157, line 11.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to offer this amendment, along
with my colleagues, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Lowenthal, Mr.
Sarbanes, Mr. Huffman, and Ms. Lujan Grisham.
It is a very simple amendment. It just strikes a policy rider,
section 439 of the bill. This section would block the EPA from doing
its job. It would block the EPA's commonsense standards for sources of
emissions of methane in the oil and gas industry, an issue that is
literally in our backyards in the State of Colorado.
It would even prevent the EPA from doing research into existing drill
sites for methane standard purposes, and, most astonishing, it would
actually prevent the EPA from clarifying the scope of emission sources,
which would continue to make sure that we know less and are less
protected rather than more protected.
The President and the EPA are taking action to protect our country,
our planet, from methane emissions. It is past time that we take bold
action to combat climate change and reduce the impact of impending
catastrophic changes to our climate, to our world, reducing national
security and hurting our economy in tourism and agriculture-dependent
districts like mine. Taking aggressive action now is, quite simply, a
moral imperative, not only within the purview of the EPA, but the
actual charge that Congress is giving the Environmental Protection
Agency.
The sad reality is that right now, the majority of our energy still
comes from fossil fuels. That is why while of course we need to invest
in renewables, at the same time, we can't wait to transition entirely
to renewable energy before we address the extraction process that
releases dangerous chemicals, such as methane as a by-product. Pound
for pound, methane pollution from oil and gas wells is 80 times more
potent than carbon dioxide and is responsible for one-quarter of human-
made climate change, according to scientists.
These EPA rules are long overdue standards for the oil and gas
industry, which will reduce methane pollution and provide certainty for
the industry. Although I wish, frankly, these new rules went further, I
wish, frankly, that Congress had taken bold action, these stricter
standards are a good start, and they are necessary. Scientists have
recently published even more convincing data showing that the methane
released during natural gas extraction is a deadly climate threat.
New scientific mapping shows that 12.4 million people live within a
half mile of the 1.2 million active oil and gas facilities in the
United States, many in my home of Colorado. This threat radius is a
very conservative estimate of the distance from which toxic air
emissions from oil and gas facilities have an adverse impact on public
health. It is why in many areas of northern Colorado and Wyoming, we
have worse air quality than downtown Los Angeles.
We must not prevent the EPA from moving forward to protect our air,
our water, and our planet, which is what Congress has charged them to
do. It is time for us to allow them to do their science-based work. It
is time to make the fossil fuel industry and fracking play by the same
set of rules the rest of the country plays by, instead of letting them
emit tons of chemicals, literally tons of chemicals into our air that
put our health and the future of the planet in jeopardy.
[[Page H4771]]
Mr. Chairman, 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, in May, EPA issued regulations for new and
existing oil and gas operations. These are the latest steps in the
President's climate agenda. EPA pulled the rug out from underneath
these companies, working in good faith to share information with the
Agency. The industry was making tremendous progress to reduce emissions
through voluntary measures. By any measurable degree, they were making
tremendous progress.
But this administration feels the need to overregulate the oil and
gas industry at every single turn, to use their police powers to bring
this industry to their knees. I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, voluntary measures are just that, voluntary.
While there might, and perhaps there are a few good actors willing to
abide by them in some States, like my home State of Colorado, have
implemented air standards. What we care about is the aggregate. We want
to discourage a race to the bottom among producers and have a national
baseline for methane emissions.
While, again, frankly, I think this rule should go a lot further, at
least it provides that baseline, provides the industry certainty, and
helps begin the process of us getting a handle on ensuring that the air
we breathe is clean and reducing climate change.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins.)
Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. Just
two amendments ago we had something called the social cost of carbon.
Well, yes, the administration has now put out a new methane rule. Guess
what. Social cost of methane is now being put forth as the economic
justification for their rules.
I pointed out just a moment ago that despite the OMB's circular
recommending a certain discount rate, unfortunately when running the
numbers, apparently the Agency doesn't get the results they want, so
what they do is change the underlying assumptions.
I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment would remove a
critical provision to protect against new, expansive methane
regulations that could harm the economy, would harm the economy, and
strangle our domestic energy portfolio. These regulations are being
developed using the same overly aggressive interpretation of the Clean
Air Act that was responsible for the costly, burdensome Clean Power
Plan.
What is interesting on this one, however, is that even the EPA found
that the methane rule would provide only marginal benefits. But they
plow ahead regardless of that finding. I urge the opposition to this
amendment.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, you can't just pretend that things don't
have costs. Of course, carbon emissions have a cost. Of course, methane
emissions have a cost. It doesn't mean that people are proposing we
abolish carbon emissions from our economy. It means we want to look at,
in this case, methane emissions and their cost. Colorado has
implemented similar rules already that the industry has adopted. There
are actors in the industry who want this very certainty so they know
what they need to do with regard to methane emissions. There are plenty
of companies providing new recapture technologies.
All this does is begin to get a handle on it. Again, in my opinion,
it doesn't go far enough. In my opinion, it isn't the kind of action I
would hope a bold Congress would take. But at the very least, let's
have standards for methane emissions. Let's prevent a ban on research
into existing drill sites for methane standard purposes.
If this section is left intact, not only does it strike the emission
standards, it prevents the EPA from doing research into what the
standards should be or could be, so we are never going to reach ``the
right answer.'' It should be beholden on those who believe that this is
not the right answer to actually support the very kind of research for
methane standard purposes that is blocked by this very section, which
our amendment will remove from the bill. I ask for your support on this
simple, commonsense amendment to remove this policy rider and help keep
our air clean.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. 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 Colorado (Mr. Polis).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. 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 Colorado
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Lowenthal
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 34
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. 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:
Page 157, strike lines 13 through 16.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lowenthal) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike a misguided policy rider that
could cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, and it maintains
a sweetheart, below-market deal for the fossil fuel industry.
My amendment would strike section 440 of the underlying bill, a
section that would prevent the Interior Department from updating
royalty rates and valuation methodologies for coal, oil, and natural
gas resources on public lands.
Now, I would think that saving the taxpayer money by charging a fair
return for the development of our public resources is something that
both sides of the aisle could agree upon. So maybe the sponsors behind
this policy rider didn't know the true magnitude of the cost to
taxpayers that their rider to this appropriations bill would impose
upon Americans.
To make sure that we all understand, Mr. Chair, what we would be
costing the taxpayer if we were to vote to keep this harmful rider, Mr.
Chair, I would like to share some eye-opening research on this matter.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, just released
in April a detailed study that reviewed possible changes to the oil and
gas fiscal system. That report explicitly analyzed how much money the
American taxpayer is losing from the current below-market onshore oil
and gas royalty rates.
CBO concluded that the U.S. Treasury would receive $200 million
additional and the Western States another $200 million over 10 years if
the Interior Department were to simply raise the onshore royalty rates
to parity with the current offshore royalty rates.
So, to be clear, keeping this misguided policy rider would prevent an
additional $200 million from being sent to the Western States and
another $200 million to the Federal taxpayer.
Mr. Chairman, I have also heard specious arguments that claim raising
onshore royalty rates will decrease production, put all oil and gas
companies out of business and actually reduce the return to the
taxpayer. This is false, and here is why: The CBO analyzed these
effects and found that this was not the case. The CBO found that the
effects on production would be negligible, and that the increases in
Federal and State revenues are net increases that include the decreases
in income from bonus bids and production changes. Furthermore,
production would not simply move to State or private lands to find
lower royalty rates because private mineral owners and Western States,
like Wyoming, New
[[Page H4772]]
Mexico, Louisiana, North Dakota, Montana, even Oklahoma and Texas, all
of them charge higher royalty rates.
Thus, I hope these facts will disabuse those who used to believe in
keeping onshore oil and gas royalty rates below market price, and now
will, instead, support the Lowenthal amendment No. 34 that will allow
the Interior Department to provide the taxpayer and Western States with
hundreds of millions of dollars in additional revenue.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 2100
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, we included a provision in this prohibiting
the Department of the Interior from changing royalty rates in its
valuation regulation for coal, oil, and gas on Federal land in order to
stem the hemorrhaging of jobs we are seeing in coal country and
throughout the United States.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke).
Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Mr. Lowenthal's
amendment to strike the language that would defund the administration's
efforts to kill coal, oil, and gas development.
My colleagues and I included this language for good reason. We are
trying to protect our schools, our infrastructure, our communities, and
the very livelihoods that depend on these revenues.
I know that royalty and valuation mean very little outside these
walls, but to my constituents across Montana, it means funding schools
and empowering local communities.
Mike Johnson, an operating engineer from Billings, I think sums it up
best:
I am a working man from Montana. I am not a doctor or a
lawyer or anything, but I personally suffered from the
Federal mismanagement of our public lands in western Montana.
I am a displaced worker from a paper mill. I now work in
eastern Montana, and people don't understand the impact these
jobs have on our lives. I saw five about five of my friends
commit suicide after the mill closed. My wife had cancer, and
I lost my health care, and I lost darn good-paying jobs.
The chairman of the great Crow Nation, Old Coyote, said:
A war on coal is a war on the Crow people.
Without Crow revenue, without revenue from coal, the Crow people
faced a lifetime of despair and poverty. They have very few options but
coal. Yet, this administration, at every turn, tries to prevent the
Crow Nation from being sovereign and from having their choice to export
and use their resource as they want. These words capture the real
problem, and the cost is real people.
I know that many don't understand where Montana is. Montana is the
same size as from here to Chicago, plus 2 miles. I understand Montana.
I understand that Montana is blessed with resources, and we want to use
them in a responsible way. But I also have to protect our families, our
ability to provide a living in Montana.
For this reason, I ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment
and stand with American workers, families, and the great Crow Nation.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, may I ask how much time I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal) has 1
minute remaining.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, we heard a very passionate plea that this
amendment of mine would hurt jobs, would hurt schools, would kill coal.
It is just the opposite.
As I pointed out, the CBO's report just indicated that production
would not go down. In fact, the largest impact upon production, the
dominant factor that controls production, is the price of crude oil and
natural gas, not the royalty rates.
I also would like to remind those on the other side of the aisle that
States like Montana already at the State level and also on private
property charge much higher than we are asking at the Federal level.
I would agree to the same charge that Montana charges residents for
its own oil and gas and coal production.
Mr. Chairman, I request an ``aye'' vote on this very reasonable
amendment that really brings money back to both States and also to the
Federal Treasury.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting. We hear the devastating
effects from people who represent these States that are rich in natural
resources and what is happening in coal country and to the oil industry
and the rest. I respect their opinion and I, obviously, oppose 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 California (Mr. Lowenthal).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. 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 California
will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 35 printed in House
Report 114-683.
Permission to Consider Amendment Nos. 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40
Offered by Mr. McNerney of California En Bloc
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment
Nos. 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40 printed in House Report 114-683, be
considered en bloc.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. McNerney of California
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment Nos. 35, 36, 37, 38,
39, and 40.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
The text of the amendments is as follows:
Amendment no. 35 offered by Mr. McNERNEY of California
Page 162, beginning on line 14, strike section 447.
Amendment no. 36 offered by Mr. McNERNEY of California
Page 166, beginning on line 19, strike section 448.
Amendment no. 37 offered by Mr. McNERNEY of California
Page 172, beginning on line 4, strike section 449.
Amendment no. 38 offered by Mr. McNERNEY of California
Page 182, beginning on line 18, strike section 450.
Amendment no. 39 offered by Mr. McNERNEY of California
Page 182, beginning on line 24, strike section 451.
Amendment no. 40 offered by Mr. McNERNEY of California
Page 183, beginning on line 3, strike section 452.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
July 12, 2016, on page H4772, the following appeared: The text
of the amendments is as follows: Page 162, beginning on line 14,
strike section 447. Page 166, beginning on line 19, strike section
448. Page 172, beginning on line 4, strike section 449. Page 182,
beginning on line 18, strike section 450. Page 182, beginning on
line 24, strike section 451. Page 183, beginning on line 3, strike
section 452
The online version has been corrected to read: The text of the
amendments is as follows: AMENDMENT NO. 35 OFFERED BY MR. McNERNEY
OF CALIFORNIA Page 162, beginning on line 14, strike section 447.
AMENDMENT NO. 36 OFFERED BY MR. McNERNEY OF CALIFORNIA Page 166,
beginning on line 19, strike section 448. AMENDMENT NO. 37 OFFERED
BY MR. McNERNEY OF CALIFORNIA Page 172, beginning on line 4,
strike section 449. AMENDMENT NO. 38 OFFERED BY MR. McNERNEY OF
CALIFORNIA Page 182, beginning on line 18, strike section 450.
AMENDMENT NO. 39 OFFERED BY MR. McNERNEY OF CALIFORNIA Page 182,
beginning on line 24, strike section 451. AMENDMENT NO. 40 OFFERED
BY MR. McNERNEY OF CALIFORNIA Page 183, beginning on line 3,
strike section 452.
========================= END NOTE =========================
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from California (Mr. McNerney) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I am submitting an amendment to strike
provisions from Mr. Valadao's bill, H.R. 2898, that were included as
riders in this year's Interior and EPA appropriations bill.
I am disappointed that my Republican colleagues continue to attach
bad policy on important appropriations bills. In this case, they have
attached the same damaging riders to the Interior appropriations bill
that would drain the California delta with over pumping. These
provisions would ravage the ecology of the delta, destroy the local
fish and wildlife, and harm communities we serve.
They would undermine 40 years of progress in protecting our land and
resources. They override environmental protection for California
rivers, fisheries, threatening thousands of fishing jobs, and weaken
the Endangered Species Act. Fish will go extinct. But my Republican
colleagues claim that this bill will not harm fish.
These sections violate existing biological opinions protecting salmon
and other endangered fish, which would impact the salmon industry
across the entire Pacific Coast.
These riders do nothing to prepare our communities for droughts in
the future. These are droughts we know are coming. They misstate
California water law and encourage further regional divides in the West
when we need to work together to bridge those differences.
H.R. 2898 has been opposed by the State and key stakeholders,
including commercial and sport fishermen, Native American tribes,
environmental groups, and recreational employers. And the Obama
administration has already threatened to veto it, but my Republican
colleagues keep claiming that water is being wasted.
[[Page H4773]]
Hydrological conditions have played a primary role in water
deliveries since the start of California's drought. The 2014 water year
was the third driest in California's recorded history, and some experts
conclude that the current drought may be the State's most severe in
1,200 years.
Currently, 100 percent of the State is experiencing some level of
drought, and more than 40 percent is experiencing ``exceptional
drought,'' the most severe drought classification according to the U.S.
Drought Monitor.
The Department of the Interior estimates that the Endangered Species
Act accounted for a mere 2 percent of the water supply reduction in the
Central Valley Project water deliveries in 2014, and current estimates
suggest a similarly small impact in 2014. California's State Water
Resources Control Board estimated that in 2015, only 2 percent of this
water flowed out to the ocean solely for environmental protection.
The water that Donald Trump said was being shoved out to sea was
actually used to prevent saltwater intrusion that would permanently
damage some of the most valuable farmland in the world. Water being
released for salinity control protects Central Valley farms from being
contaminated.
California and Federal officials have been able to increase exports
from the California delta using existing authority. This action has
helped maximize the use of what little water exists in the State. A
lack of water is our biggest threat, not operational flexibility. And
my colleagues still wonder where some of that water went.
Well, according to the Bay Institute, earlier this year,
approximately two-thirds of storm runoff was captured or diverted, with
only one-third of the runoff making it through the delta estuary. And
for the period of October 1 of last year to January 31, 60 percent of
storm water was diverted or stored.
Water scarcity in California is caused by longstanding and severe
drought and the slow pace of investments in efficiency, water
recycling, and other supplies. Many senior water right holders have
received 100 percent of their allocation this year. According to State
law, they are supposed to get that amount. The other junior right
holders got much less, but that is what it means to be a junior water
right holder--you don't get as much water in a drought.
California has the right to stop seawater intrusion, protect water
quality for our communities and farms, and distribute allocations
according to their water right system. Even the junior water right
holders have proven their resiliency. In fact, the National Agriculture
Statistics Service projects a record almond crop in California this
year. The orchards will yield an estimated 2.05 billion pounds, up from
an even 2 billion the year before. It would eclipse the record.
I am deeply disappointed this bill has been included in this year's
Interior appropriations bill, and I hope my amendment passes to strike
out these harmful provisions.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, we all know there has been a drought in
California, except for this year. This year, we have had some relief
from the historic drought conditions that have been certainly made
worse by Federal actions, which have, undoubtedly, led to increased
pressure on California's ability to provide water throughout the State.
I have been following the flows of water through the delta virtually
every day. I remember one day there was 185,000 cubic feet per second
moving through the delta. And for whatever reason, decisions were made
to only pump 2,500 cubic feet per second when you are allowed under the
biological opinion to pump 5,000. I am just going to give that as one
example.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), who
has been working very hard in the Central Valley for the farms and his
constituents.
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chairman, 380 million gallons a day; that is a
number that should have been quoted. When you hear about 380 million
gallons a day of sewage being dumped in this estuary that they talk
about, this environment they are trying to protect, when you think
about that much sewage being dumped into the delta on a daily basis,
you hear the same people talking about trying to protect it.
There are things going on in that delta. And they have been
restricting our water for the last 20 years, and it has not saved that
species. There are provisions in these bills that actually help. We
attacked the invasive species that is attacking the delta smelt, the
striped bass. We have offered that provision many times.
We are offering many solutions. Like the author mentioned earlier, we
have had language in probably five different pieces of legislation
going through the House over to the Senate. We have begged for an open
and transparent process where we can debate this and have some
commonsense ideas brought forward and voted and signed into law so that
we can help both our communities.
If you truly care about the delta, stop polluting it. If you truly
care about the people of California and what it costs to feed your
families, if you truly care about farm workers, if you truly care about
these small communities, you would care about water and doing this
right and having an honest debate.
Now, I have been approached off camera a million times now to have
another off-camera conversation about this, and we have said all along:
No more conversation like that. Everything on the floor. This is an
open, transparent process. Five pieces of legislation have this
language in it. And we are going to continue to push until we can get
some support so we can fix this problem.
{time} 2115
So those little communities in my district that people claim to care
about could actually turn on a faucet and fill a pot of water so they
can make themselves some food to eat and some dinner, maybe bathe their
children, because that is where we are today. We have houses that, when
they turn on a faucet, they no longer have water.
And I get the whole junior water rights concern, but if they were
truly concerned about the environment, they would give up some of their
water. But you look at Hetch Hetchy, that has had 100 percent of their
water and continues to deliver that water via pipeline all the way to
San Francisco without one conversation about that water being able to
help some of these rivers and some of these species, but they are not
willing to give up any of their water. They are willing to take other
people's water. It is the same thing we hear about on so many different
issues; take someone else's product, or someone else's water and try to
solve another problem with it.
And the problem has to be solved the right way: language that we have
offered, that has been offered into these amendments, into these bills,
and that we have pushed over to the Senate, and the conversation has to
be had in an open, transparent process like our Senators have told us
they wanted.
So we are here. We are ready for that conversation. We want an honest
debate, and we want to talk about the way we actually fix these
problems.
We are not going to try to accommodate communities dumping their
sewage in the delta, but we want to help those species, and there is
language in there to do that, even language in there to help capture
some of the water. Use some of the infrastructure we have paid for as
taxpayers and allow it to be used to its full capacity so we can
continue to store water that we do have and not waste it.
This is an honest piece of language that could actually help solve
California's problems, and I think we need to continue to have an
honest debate.
Mr. CALVERT. Obviously, this is an emotional subject. It is not just
water that is going to the Central Valley, also to the southern
California region for the millions of people who live there.
We don't want to see water wasted. This year, we saw hundreds and
hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water being released through the
delta, really, with not saving one fish. Even independent agencies will
privately agree that they were overly conservative
[[Page H4774]]
when they were managing the pump operations of late.
So this suffering that is going on is terrible. It needs to come to
an end. I certainly oppose this amendment and urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered
by the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendments offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Grijalva
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 41
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. GRIJALVA. 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:
Page 183, strike line 23 and all that follows through page
184, line 15.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to strike section
453 from the underlying bill.
Section 453 restricts funds from being used to establish a national
monument pursuant to the Antiquities Act in several Western counties,
including Maricopa County in Arizona, a portion of which I represent in
Congress.
I understand the Member who inserted this language into the bill
during committee consideration is generally opposed, if not totally
opposed, to the use of the Antiquities Act.
This section restricts the use of the Antiquities Act on over 160
million acres of public land, nearly one-quarter of all Federal land in
the lower 48. I know that many of the Members of Congress who represent
these areas do not support this blanket restriction on the use the
Antiquities Act.
So that we are absolutely clear, these monuments can be established
only on land already owned by the Federal Government. This is how
Federal lands should be preserved. It is not about adding more land to
the Federal estate.
Since Theodore Roosevelt's designation of the first national
monument, Devils Tower in Wyoming, 16 Presidents from both parties have
used the Antiquities Act to protect more than 160 of America's best
known and most loved landscapes; only 3 Presidents have not.
America's public places are becoming more and more inclusive, more
representative of all Americans, and as President Obama has
demonstrated with the use of the Antiquities Act, more representative
of the real reality, history, culture, and special places of this
Nation that represent all people. That is why, presently, I am working
with the region's Native American communities and, in earnest, I have
asked the President to designate the Greater Grand Canyon Heritage
National Monument on public land surrounding the Grand Canyon.
Section 435 of this bill will jeopardize not only that effort, but
other efforts around the country to honor, recognize, and protect our
most cherished cultural, historic, and natural resources, and it should
be removed from the bill.
I urge my colleagues to stand up in defense of the Antiquities Act
and support my amendment to strike Section 435 from this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Stewart).
Mr. STEWART. Mr. Chairman, some 20 years ago, President Clinton went
to Arizona and he pointed across the border into Utah, in my district,
and he said: I'm creating a national monument over there--nearly 2
million acres.
He did not have the courage to come to Utah to defend this monument
nor to create it because he knew that the local people did not support
it. That monument has been incredibly unpopular since then. It has
kicked ranchers off the range. It has decimated the local economies,
until we have reached this point, where some of the local school
districts have had to declare an emergency because their schools are
dying and their children are having to ride a bus for 2 hours, one way,
2 hours, to go to school. Why? Because there are no jobs that can
support a family, and people are having to leave.
Local input is so important to the creation of these monuments, and
there are examples where local input and where people collaborating
have worked together and come to a great solution. Rob Bishop has done
that. Just yesterday, we held a bipartisan press conference where we
had local mayors, Republicans and Democrats, on what we called the
Mountain Accord.
I am asking President Obama, please, come to my State. Talk to the
people in my district. See what they think about this monument. Come
talk to us and see how this will impact them.
Now, let me close with this. There is a reason I live in Utah. I love
to ski. I love to rock climb. I love to hike. I love to sit on my porch
and look at the beautiful landscape around me. I want to preserve this.
All of us do. But there is a right way to do this and there is a wrong
way to do this, and the Antiquities Act and the stroke of a pen of a
President who won't even come to the State to defend his action is not
the right way.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Maine (Ms. Pingree).
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding the time.
I really want to support this important amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona. It is important because it will strike a
section of this bill that will hurt a small group of States, including
my State of Maine.
As we all know, the Congress gave the President the right to create a
national monument over 100 years ago. Since then, the President has
used that authority to create national monuments like Yellowstone,
Grand Canyon National Park, and Acadia National Park in my district.
National monuments bring economic benefits to States, and the use of
the Antiquities Act has been an important conservation tool for over a
century. For my State of Maine, a national monument would bring new
visitors to the area and create jobs, not just in the immediate region,
but throughout the State.
For example, we already have a national park in Maine, Acadia
National Park. Acadia started out as a national monument 100 years ago
this very month, and it brings about 3 million visitors a year to the
region.
Mr. Chair, this bill has very problematic language in that it will
block the creation of national monuments, even in areas where one might
be supported by our local communities. We need to strip this provision
out of the underlying bill.
I urge my colleagues to strongly support the Grijalva amendment.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Grijalva, who represents
southwestern Arizona, is seeking to lock up 1.7 million acres in
northern Arizona, at the behest of special interest groups, for the
sole purpose of preventing mining, retiring grazing permits, closing
roads to OHV users, and preventing forest thinning activities. There is
significant opposition in Arizona to this proposed land grab, as
Americans for Responsible Recreational Access recently reported that a
scientific poll found that 71.6 percent of Arizonans are opposed.
In April, I held a public meeting to hear concerns about this
proposal, and hundreds of local stakeholders showed up in opposition.
More than 30 Arizona witnesses submitted formal testimony against this
land grab, including Arizona's Governor, the Arizona Chamber of
Commerce and Industry, numerous businesses, sportsmen's groups, ag
[[Page H4775]]
groups, local officials, and countless taxpayers. In fact, several of
the comments pertaining to today are out of line.
In fact, in this proposal, the entire town of Tusayan, which is in
Coconino County, would be swallowed up by this proposed monument. Town
managers testified against it.
Arizona State Land Department Commissioner Lisa Atkins submitted
testimony stating: ``Of the 1.7 million acres included in the proposal
for the Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument, 64,000 acres belong
solely to the Common Schools beneficiary: K-12 education.''
The list goes on and on and on. I asked everybody. In fact, Arizona
Governor Doug Ducey stated: ``Imposition of a preservation management
objective overlay on 1.7 million acres of land in Arizona thwarts
Arizona's land management objectives and values, and it does so by
bypassing a public process that would most certainly result in a much
more thoughtful result. The Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument is
not narrow, targeted, warranted, or being considered through an open
cooperative public process.''
I, last but not least, bring up that attorneys also have testified
that this proposed monument will tie up future surface water use and
future groundwater use.
I urge a ``no'' vote on amendment 41.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, is there any time left for the opposition?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Nevada (Ms. Titus).
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Grijalva's
amendment.
I represent the heart of the Las Vegas Valley, which attracts more
than 42 million visitors from around the globe every year to the world
famous Strip to visit our first-class casinos, restaurants, shopping,
and shows.
But that is not the only reason people come to Nevada. They come to
see the West as it was hundreds, even thousands, of years ago. They
come to see the iconic bighorn sheep, the Joshua tree, the petroglyphs
that tell the history of the first people who called southern Nevada
home.
Congress rightfully entrusted in the President the authority to
designate such special places for protection, but this bill would
eliminate his or her ability to do that, to protect those places that
tell America's stories.
I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Grijalva's amendment to strip out
this section from the bill.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me say, since the item
came up of the Grand Canyon, the Grand Canyon is an icon to this whole
Nation and is supported overwhelmingly by public opinion to create a
monument that protects it from degradation from uranium mining, that
protects the watershed that feeds water to 23 million people across the
West, Nevada, California, Arizona. To say that this is merely a
grabbing and a taking is to misrepresent history, misrepresent the
reality of that resource; and, in the long term, understand that this
icon, the Grand Canyon, is there to be preserved and protected by this
Congress, not to be turned over for exploitation.
I urge support of the amendment to protect the prerogatives of not
only a President, but the prerogatives of our natural resources to be
protected in perpetuity for generations and generations to come.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. 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.
{time} 2130
Amendment No. 42 Offered by Mrs. Black
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 42
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mrs. BLACK. 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 Environmental Protection Agency to finalize,
implement, administer, or enforce section 1037.601(a)(1) of
title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be
revised under the proposed rule entitled ``Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and
Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles-Phase 2'' published by the
Environmental Protection Agency in the Federal Register on
July 13, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 40138 et seq.), or any rule of
the same substance, with respect to glider kits and glider
vehicles (as defined in section 1037.801 of title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations, as proposed to be revised under such
proposed rule).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentlewoman
from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to
protect American workers and small manufacturing businesses from a
misguided provision in a proposed EPA rule. Last year, the EPA released
its phase 2 fuel efficiency and emissions standard for new medium- and
heavy-duty trucks.
While many in the trucking industry are not opposed to the phase 2
rule as a whole, one section in the proposal wrongly applies these
standards to what are known as glider kits.
A glider kit is a group of vehicle parts that can include a brand new
truck frame, cab, or axles, but which does not include an engine or
transmission. Since a glider kit is less expensive to purchase than a
new heavy-duty truck and can extend the investment and working life of
a truck, businesses and drivers with a damaged or older vehicle may
choose to purchase a glider kit instead of buying a new one.
Gliders extend the useful life of truck engines while frequently
having a higher resale price against comparable trucks. Due to their
rebuilt engines, they can also often be a more fuel-efficient option,
allowing trucking companies and drivers to use less fuel.
Unfortunately, the EPA is proposing to apply the new phase 2
standards to glider kits even though gliders are not really new
vehicles. Further, it is unclear whether the EPA even has the authority
to regulate the replacement parts like gliders. While the EPA's stated
goal with phase 2 is to reduce emissions, the agency has not studied
the emissions impact of remanufactured engines and gliders compared to
new vehicles.
It appears the agency's actual motivation is to force businesses and
drivers that would like to use glider kits to instead buy new trucks.
Applying the phase 2 standards to glider kits would certainly harm the
workers and owners in the glider industry, leading to possible closure
of these businesses and job losses at both manufacturers and
dealerships. Additionally, the EPA's rule would limit consumer choice
in the marketplace. Under this proposal, many operators and businesses
would simply choose to continue using current vehicles, leaving older
trucks on the road longer.
My amendment would protect these businesses and American
manufacturing jobs by prohibiting the EPA from finalizing,
implementing, administering, or even enforcing phase 2 standards on
glider kits.
To be clear, this amendment would not--and I repeat, would not--bar
the EPA from implementing the whole phase 2 rule for medium and heavy-
duty trucks. It would simply clarify that glider kits and glider
vehicles are not new trucks as the EPA claims.
I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to help
support American manufacturing and stop the EPA from attempting to shut
down the glider industry.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
[[Page H4776]]
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chair, last year, the Environmental Protection Agency
and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued proposed
fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks as required
by the Energy Independence and Security Act.
This amendment would prohibit EPA from finalizing, implementing,
administering, or enforcing this proposed rule or any rule of the same
substance with respect to glider vehicles. These new standards are
designed to improve fuel efficiency and cut carbon pollution to reduce
the impact of climate change.
To be specific, Mr. Chair, these standards are expected to lower
CO2 emissions by roughly 1 billion metric tons, cut fuel
costs by $170 million, and reduce oil consumption by up to 1.8 billion
barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program. Now,
heavy-duty trucks account for 5 percent of the vehicles on the road,
and yet they create 20 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions created
by all transportation sectors.
I would note for my colleagues that this amendment doesn't actually
suspend all aspects of the new rule; it simply carves out an exemption
for one particular industry, the industry that produces what are known
as glider vehicles.
Glider vehicles are heavy-duty vehicles that place an older or
remanufactured engine on a new truck chassis. These are engines that
date back to 2001 or older. They have emissions that are 20 to 40 times
higher than today's clean diesel engines.
In essence, Mr. Chair, this amendment would allow an entire segment
of the truck manufacturing industry to avoid compliance with the new
criteria pollutant standards that are in the rule. These are engines
that will continue to emit greenhouse gases and slow down our progress
in reducing the impacts of climate change. In short, Mr. Chair, this
amendment creates a loophole that you could drive a truck through by
allowing dirty engines to continue to pollute our environment.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert) the chairman.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, it is my understanding that the overall rule
is supported broadly by many in the truck and the manufacturing
industry. However, as any rule, there are some specifics that do need
to be ironed out, and my colleague has narrowly tailored this amendment
to address concerns within the EPA's rule. So you really can't drive a
truck through it.
I support this language in the Interior bill.
Mr. Chair, I urge Members to vote ``aye'' on this amendment.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chair, this proposed language from the EPA is
improper and ill-conceived with no regard to jobs. If the EPA is going
to promulgate rules that raise the costs and hurt jobs in districts
like mine, the least they can do is to have a few facts prepared to
back them.
Communities where these kits are manufactured are already struggling
with above average unemployment, and would see more job opportunities
put out of reach.
Furthermore, there seems to have been little time for the glider
industry to even respond and to have little to no economic
consideration given prior.
Our constituent, dealers and employees, glider truck owners and
operators, and remanufacturing businesses will disproportionately be
affected by the EPA's decision to effectively ban the products that
they sell, service, and drive. The U.S. truck industry has been a
bright spot in the recovery of the national economy, and applying new
standards to the gliders would increase expenses for our businesses and
their drivers.
Congress has recognized the value of remanufactured parts and
components. The United States Senate and House of Representatives have
voted overwhelmingly in support of legislation, the Federal Vehicle
Repair Cost Savings Act, which was signed into law just last year, to
encourage Federal agencies to consider using remanufactured parts in
the Federal vehicle fleet. So it is happening in the Federal
Government. This is going to affect the private sector.
To restrict the usage of manufactured engines under this rulemaking
appears to be counter to the congressional intent.
I will reiterate that gliders, by definition, aren't a motor vehicle,
and they therefore should be used outside the EPA's authority.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chair, I would just restate that this amendment
creates a loophole. It creates a loophole for one industry. It picks
winners and losers. The winners would be one segment of the truck
industry. The losers would be jobs, our health, and our environment.
Mr. Chair, I ask for opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chair, 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 No. 43 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 43
printed in House Report 114-683.
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 appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated
or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby
reduced by 1 percent.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentlewoman
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition. I want to
begin by saying I think the committee has done an amazing job with
consistently making reductions in what they are spending. It is
appropriate that we do that because we are $19.3 trillion in debt.
My amendment is a very simple reduction in spending. It is a penny
out of a dollar--1 percent--across the board. I know it is not popular.
I know everybody says it goes too far. But this will save us $321
million--of course, not a lot when you look at the total budget, but it
is very appropriate that we begin to take these steps.
I think it is so interesting talking about Ronald Reagan and how he
approached things. He would always say: Let's take a little bit, a few
steps at a time and begin to get behind some of this and get our
economy and get our government back in shape, right-size it.
That is exactly what he did, and it paid off for our country with
economic growth, making certain that our economy was growing, and that
our revenues were growing. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, since that time, we
have seen our country doesn't have a revenue problem. What we have is a
spending problem. What we have is a priority problem. What we fail to
do time and time again is to realize that the taxpayers tell us they
are overtaxed, our government is overspent, and they want us to
consistently make as many spending reductions as we possibly can.
So I come, once again, to the floor with this 1 percent across-the-
board spending cut. What it will do is to make that reduction of
another $321 million to build on the success the committee has already
shown with coming $64 million below the 2016 enacted levels. They are
to be commended for that. But let's get in behind it. Let's compound
these savings and begin to get our fiscal house in order.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I believe that our colleagues will be
treated to a rare display of bipartisan harmony on this amendment.
[[Page H4777]]
Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose the amendment.
Look, this is not a perfect bill, and there are clear differences on
this amendment, but we should not be underfunding what, in my view, is
already underfunded. If this amendment were to pass, we are looking at
fewer patients that would be seen at the Indian Health Service, fewer
safety inspectors ensuring that accidents do not occur, and deferred
maintenance on our Nation's drinking water and sanitation
infrastructure. More generally, Mr. Chairman, investments in our
environmental infrastructure and our public lands will be halted, and
jobs will be lost.
The bill is already underfunded in my view, and this amendment would
not encourage the agencies to do more with less. Simply put, it would
force agencies and our constituents to do less with less. I strongly
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISRAEL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I certainly appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment and her intent to
reduce spending. As she well knows, we have reduced this bill somewhat
over the years, as we have on all of the discretionary accounts that
the Appropriations Committee is responsible for.
This really is a decision based upon discussion regarding
discretionary accounts versus nondiscretionary accounts. If we could
have cut the nondiscretionary accounts as much as we have cut
discretionary accounts, we could probably balance the budget plus. But
unfortunately, we are not there.
So I rise in opposition to this amendment. I commend my colleague for
her consistent work to protect taxpayer dollars, but this is not an
approach I can support. While the President's proposed budget exceeds
the bill, the increases were paid for with proposals and gimmicks that
would never be enacted. This bill makes the tough choices with an
allocation that adheres to the current law.
We may not agree that it is enough, but that is what the current law
is. So we made trade-offs, and we have done many difficult choices to
make this work.
Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to this amendment.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 2145
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I have heard every excuse that there
is--always do--and I know that spending reductions are not popular
around here. I get it. I know it. But let me tell you what I think also
is not proper.
I think that it is immoral for us to spend money that we don't have--
it is not our money; it is taxpayer money--and to spend it on programs
that our constituents don't want.
I think it is also immoral for us to not get our spending under
control and to pass along all this debt to our children and our
grandchildren. Just think about it. My grandsons, who are 7 and 8 years
old, by the time they begin paying taxes, these programs, many of them,
will have outlived their usefulness. The utilization of these dollars
will be gone.
Do I hope we have the political will to look at the mandatory
spending side of the column? Absolutely.
A couple of other points. I would hope that bipartisanship will come
to reducing what we spend in this Chamber, that there will be agreement
that we are, indeed, overtaxed and overspent, and the fiscal health of
this Nation needs to be addressed.
I also think that what we need to look at is the burden of taxation
has caused many of our constituents to face deferred maintenance on
their homes, on their businesses, on their dreams, because they are
having to pay their taxes, they are having to pay what the Federal
Government takes out of those paychecks, first right of refusal on
those paychecks. It also causes job loss.
It is time for us to address our overspending and our national debt.
I do hope we see some work on the mandatory side of the column.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman notes that it is the
taxpayers' money. She is right, it is the taxpayers' money. Taxpayers
expect that their money will be spent safeguarding their
infrastructure. They expect that their money will be spent on
maintenance, maintaining their infrastructure. They expect that their
money will be spent making sure that when they turn on the faucets in
Flint, Michigan, toxic water doesn't come out. They expect that if they
have health problems, they will be able to get some monitoring and that
their health will be taken care of. They expect us to spend their
dollars wisely.
As I said before, Mr. Chairman, this is not a perfect bill. But the
chairman is correct, this bill adheres to the law. While we would say
we are not investing enough, and while the chairman would say we are
investing about what we have, the gentlewoman's amendment would
actually force us to do much less with even less.
Those are not priorities we can support, Mr. Chairman, which is why I
urge my colleagues to join the chairman and our ranking member in
opposing 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. 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 No. 44 Offered by Mr. Boustany
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 44
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. BOUSTANY. 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 Secretary of the Interior to implement,
administer, or enforce any rule or guidance of the same
substance as the proposed rule regarding Risk Management,
Financial Assurance and Loss Prevention for which advanced
notice of proposed rulemaking was published by the Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management on August 19, 2014 (79 Fed. Reg.
49027) or the National Notice to Lessees and Operators of
Federal Oil and Gas and Sulphur Leases, Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) issued by such Bureau (NTL No. 2016-N03).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit the use of
funds by the Secretary of the Interior for the purpose of
implementation, administering, or enforcing any rule or guidance
similar to the proposed guidance that the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management released regarding financial assurances for oil and gas
operations on the Outer Continental Shelf.
The Federal Government currently requires American offshore oil and
gas companies to buy liability bonds ranging from tens of thousands of
dollars to tens of millions of dollars for every offshore lease. In
August of 2014, BOEM published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
seeking industry input on ``risk management, financial assurance, and
loss prevention.''
Inexplicably, BOEM elected to circumvent the rulemaking process it
initiated and, instead, released proposed guidance in August 2015 that
creates new rules that will change the way the oil and gas industry
funds these decommissioning costs--also referred to as ``plugging'' or
``abandonment''--of wells, pipelines, and other facilities in the Gulf
of Mexico's Outer Continental Shelf.
The Obama administration ignored warnings from stakeholders that this
proposed guidance could drive many companies into bankruptcy precisely
at a time when the industry is suffering from a commodity price
collapse. A lot of workers in Louisiana
[[Page H4778]]
and across the Gulf Coast have been laid off.
BOEM has asserted that these rule changes are necessary to prevent
taxpayers from being left with the tab for decommissioning work in
light of a number of recent bankruptcy filings by OCS shelf operators.
Ironically, BOEM's solution will likely trigger the major risk that it
is trying to protect against. If implemented, these changes will pose
an existential threat to many OCS shelf operators, discourage future
investment, cost thousands of jobs, and dramatically reduce the
royalties to U.S. taxpayers.
For example, under the new rules, each party would be assessed 100
percent on shared leases, and a joint operating agreement is no longer
accepted as a reflection of actual liability.
This means that if there are four companies sharing a project and it
would cost an estimated $20 million to remove that particular platform,
BOEM would, nevertheless, require each party to post a $20 million bond
to remove the platform. It hardly seems necessary to require $80
million in bonding for a $20 million project.
The new rules also require full bonding up front for all possible
wells in the exploratory plan, despite the fact that the wells may
never be drilled. The P&A liability, in many cases, will not accrue for
many, many years. For facilities already in production, BOEM will
require capital assurance for the lifetime production value of the
property every year, meaning that each year a lessee will be
responsible for 100 percent of the P&A liability for every production
facility exploration activity in production value.
In fact, many of the industry experts have expressed concern that
BOEM has not even provided a clear definition of the problem that the
agency is trying to solve nor has there been any justification provided
as to the need for major changes to the existing regulatory framework.
Experts throughout the industry remain concerned that if this proposed
guidance were to be finalized, it would dramatically limit the
industry's ability to successfully explore and extract oil and gas from
the Gulf of Mexico.
A new rule, guidance, or any other form of notice from BOEM on
supplemental bonding will stifle oil and gas production on the OCS and
throughout the Gulf of Mexico. This is not in the interest of the
United States.
I urge adoption of my amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would clearly block the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management from finalizing guidance to clarify
financial assurances for oil and gas companies operating in the Outer
Continental Shelf.
The guidance is important because it details the procedures that will
be used to determine the lessee's financial ability to carry out its
obligations so that we, the taxpayer, our constituents, can be sure
that the oil company can pay for all of its costs associated with
offshore drilling. The guidance is necessary to ensure that oil
companies have the financial capability to properly decommission outer
shelf facilities instead of abandoning them and leaving the American
taxpayer, our constituents, on the hook to pay the cost.
The guidance will modernize the financial assurance regulations to
match the current industry practices, provide updated criteria for
determining the lessee's ability to self-insure its liabilities based
on the lessee's financial capacity and financial strength. We should be
working together to ensure that the U.S. taxpayer never pays to
decommission an OCS facility and that the environment is protected at
the same time.
This amendment protects the special interests of Big Oil at the
taxpayer's expense, so I must protect the taxpayer and oppose this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman
from Louisiana for bringing this amendment up.
Here is the reality. This is largely a solution in search of a
problem. There has not been a single case in the history of offshore
energy production where the government has been left holding the bag.
It doesn't exist. So, yes, we should be working together. Representing
one of the most ecologically productive coastal areas in the United
States, we are very concerned about what happens with our coastal area.
But, again, we are proposing solutions in search of problems. All
this is going to do is it is going to result in a decrease in
competition for offshore energy production, a decrease in competition,
and a decrease in revenue for the United States Treasury. This funds
the Land and Water Conservation Fund, something that your side often
stands up for and fights for. This has provided nearly $200 billion for
the United States Treasury, one of the largest revenue streams for the
United States Government outside of taxes.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this amendment. This policy, this
notice to lessees, is ill-advised. It simply has been done in the dark
of night, and it is a solution in search of a problem.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, we need in this day and age to make sure
that the American taxpayer is protected. We have seen time and time
again when environmental disasters happen and brownfields are left
behind or what is going on in Flint, the taxpayer picks up the bill.
I just really believe that this guidance is necessary to ensure that
oil companies have the financial capability--that they have on the
books the financial capability to properly decommission their Outer
Continental Shelf facilities instead of abandoning them, leaving the
American taxpayer to pay for the cleanup.
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 Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 45 Offered by Mr. Boustany
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 45
printed in House Report 114-683.
Mr. BOUSTANY. 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
used by the Secretary of the Interior to implement,
administer, or enforce any rule of the same substance as the
proposed rule entitled ``Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations
in the Outer Continental Shelf-Blowout Preventer Systems and
Well Control'' and published April 17, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg.
21504), the final rule issued by the Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement with that title (Docket ID: BSEE-
2015-0002; 15XE1700DX EEEE500000 EX1SF0000.DAQ000), or any
rule of the same substance as such proposed or final rule.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will prohibit any money
being spent for the implementation or enforcement of any rule or
guidance similar to the well-controlled rule offered by the Bureau of
Safety and Environmental Enforcement, or BSEE.
Unfortunately, according to experts throughout the oil and gas
industry, many of the prescriptive requirements contained within the
final well-controlled rule will neither improve safety nor reduce
environmental risk in drilling, but will actually have unintended
consequences of increasing risk beyond that of existing regulations.
Additionally, the final rule will create significant additional
expenses and burdens for those engaged in exploration development and
production activities on the Outer Continental Shelf.
Ultimately, these added economic and compliance cost tens of billions
of
[[Page H4779]]
dollars over 10 years, and together with other regulatory burdens, they
could force some smaller operators out of business and drive larger
operators from the Federal OCS toward countries with less prescriptive
regulatory environments or other opportunities. This means that the
negative impacts of this destructive rule will likely be felt
throughout all 50 States.
To my colleagues who represent States that do not have offshore
development, I would argue that you should support this amendment
because BSEE's well-controlled rule is yet another example of the Obama
administration not listening to real experts in this industry and,
instead, forcing rules and regulations into place that will hurt the
domestic industry and our U.S. economy.
In effect, the well-controlled rule ultimately could increase risk
and decrease safety on the Outer Continental Shelf. It is a one-size-
fits-all proposal that really is not realistic.
{time} 2200
It will also negatively impact the attractiveness of the Gulf of
Mexico for future oil and gas investment, and it will likely result in
oil and gas operators choosing to develop energy resources in other
parts of the world, taking those jobs and those investment
opportunities with them.
As the House's Task Forces on Reducing Regulatory Burdens and
Restoring Constitutional Authority explains in its mission statement,
we as a government should be working to ``make it easier to invest,
produce, and build in America with a modern and transparent regulatory
system that relieves the burden on small businesses and other job
creators and encourages financial independence while balancing
environmental stewardship, public safety, and consumer interests.''
BSEE's well control rule does not do this. America cannot continue to
be the global energy leader without policies that foster this kind of
innovation, investment, and development of our energy resources.
Safety, not convenience, must always be the driving force behind these
initiatives. BSEE'S well control rule not only leaves industry with
numerous questions about compliance, but it also has experts concerned
that these new measures will increase risk.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I am surprised this amendment is being
offered because there is already a rider in the bill that pretty much
accomplishes what the gentleman's amendment would do. Let's be clear
what this amendment does.
It reverses the safety improvements that were developed following the
Deepwater Horizon tragedy. It would delay or prevent the implementation
of a rule that was developed directly from the recommendations of
numerous investigations. There was a full investigation. These are the
recommendations from it. The investigations were conducted by industry
experts, and they determined the actual cause of the Deepwater Horizon
tragedy and the impact on the Gulf of Mexico and on the surrounding
States and on the local communities, as we heard Ms. Castor from
Florida talk about earlier.
Many of the requirements of this rule are not new. They were already
in existence as industry standards, notice to lessees and guidance and
equipment and operation requirements that were already part of the
regulation. What the rule does is consolidates these requirements into
one section and makes them enforceable--yes, enforceable. The
Department of the Interior estimates that the regulation amendment
blocks would prevent between $657 million and $4.4 billion of damage
caused by well blowouts over 10 years.
Most importantly, this estimate does not take into account the human
element of these protections. I think we can all agree that you cannot
put a price on human life. The Deepwater Horizon was a tragic event.
Eleven lives were lost in that explosion. It is unconscionable that
this amendment, once again, looks to put the profits of big oil
companies ahead of workers' safety; so I oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman from
Louisiana for yielding and also for bringing up this amendment.
Let's talk about reality versus fiction. Here is the reality.
The reality is that these regulations have not been out there. They
were not subject to investigations and studies. I was the lead trustee
for the State of Louisiana. I was the tip of the spear who was fighting
BP during the entire Deepwater Horizon, and I was the natural resource
manager for the coast of Louisiana under which over 600 miles of our
coast was oiled.
I appreciate the gentleman for stepping in and trying to defend our
environment and our resources. For the constituents whom I represent
who lost family members, the reality is this: 60 percent of the wells
since the Deepwater Horizon couldn't even be drilled under this
proposed rule. The reality is that the Department of the Interior's
cost estimate said it was going to cost $883 million to comply with
when a private study said it was going to be $93 billion.
The reality is this: you have a bunch of bureaucrats who are sitting
around in a vacuum who have no idea what they are doing and who are
proposing things under the auspices of safety but that actually
threaten the lives of our citizens in south Louisiana who are producing
energy for this Nation--in fact, approximately 17 percent of the energy
for the United States.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota has 3 minutes
remaining.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, in closing, that is why I do not understand
the redundancy, the duplicity--why we keep doing this over and over and
over again. This bill already undoes a lot of what the regulation would
do to protect the environment and to protect workers' safety.
I read from the bill at page 69, line 4, section 124, and this is
about drilling margins:
``None of the funds made available in this act or any other act for
any fiscal year may be used to develop, adopt, implement, administer,
or enforce any change to regulations and guidance.'' It goes on.
This amendment would reverse the safety improvements that were
developed following the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, something to which,
I think, America said no more: no more loss of life, no impact like
this on our environment.
I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chair, in Louisiana, we understand quite clearly
how good environmental policy, economic policy, energy policy march
hand in hand. We also know that the men and women who work on these
rigs are our friends, our neighbors, our family, and safety is first.
We also know from experts across the industry that this proposed rule
is a one-size-fits-all proposal that increases risk. It makes it more
risky, and we will not stand to allow this rule to go forward. That is
why I urge the adoption of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. McCOLLUM. 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 Louisiana
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 printed in House Report 114-683 on
[[Page H4780]]
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Castor of Florida.
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Himes of Connecticut.
Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Ellison of Minnesota.
Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Norcross of New Jersey.
Amendment No. 10 by Mr. Beyer of Virginia.
Amendment No. 11 by Mr. Huffman of California.
Amendment No. 12 by Ms. Castor of Florida.
Amendment No. 13 by Mr. Huffman of California.
Amendment No. 14 by Mr. Smith of Missouri.
Amendment No. 20 by Mr. Palmer of Alabama.
Amendment No. 21 by Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico.
Amendment No. 22 by Mrs. Dingell of Michigan.
Amendment No. 27 by Mr. Cartwright of Pennsylvania.
Amendment No. 28 by Mr. Becerra of California.
Amendment No. 29 by Mr. Peters of California.
Amendment No. 31 by Mr. Peters of California.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Castor) 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 197,
noes 225, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 417]
AYES--197
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costello (PA)
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
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
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
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
Nugent
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
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
Yarmuth
NOES--225
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bishop (MI)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
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
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
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 (TX)
Stewart
Stivers
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--11
Bishop (UT)
Dold
Foxx
Hastings
Jolly
Marino
Poe (TX)
Sanchez, Loretta
Stutzman
Takai
Wilson (FL)
{time} 2229
Messrs. HANNA, GUTIERREZ, and FITZPATRICK changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. DOLD. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 417, I was unavoidably detained.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Himes
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Himes) 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 183,
noes 241, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 418]
AYES--183
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
[[Page H4781]]
Gallego
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Guinta
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
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
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
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
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--241
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
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
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DelBene
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garamendi
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
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
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
Schiff
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stewart
Stivers
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
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--9
DeSaulnier
Foxx
Hastings
Jolly
Marino
Poe (TX)
Sanchez, Loretta
Stutzman
Takai
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of Georgia) (during the vote). There is
1 minute remaining.
{time} 2231
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Ellison
The Acting CHAIR. 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 is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173,
noes 251, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 419]
AYES--173
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
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)
Yarmuth
NOES--251
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
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garamendi
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Himes
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
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
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poliquin
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
[[Page H4782]]
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (NY)
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
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--9
Foxx
Hastings
Jolly
Marino
Poe (TX)
Richmond
Sanchez, Loretta
Stutzman
Takai
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2236
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Norcross
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Norcross) 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 143,
noes 282, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 420]
AYES--143
Barletta
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Bustos
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis, Danny
Delaney
DeLauro
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Garrett
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hahn
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kind
Kuster
Lance
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
McGovern
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Moolenaar
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Speier
Stefanik
Swalwell (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--282
Abraham
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Capps
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Cleaver
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis (CA)
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Farr
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graham
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grijalva
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Honda
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kildee
Kilmer
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Larsen (WA)
Latta
Lipinski
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lowenthal
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Massie
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Ruiz
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stewart
Stivers
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Trott
Turner
Valadao
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--8
Foxx
Hastings
Jolly
Marino
Poe (TX)
Sanchez, Loretta
Stutzman
Takai
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2239
Mr. GARRETT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Beyer
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Beyer) 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 190,
noes 235, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 421]
AYES--190
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
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
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
[[Page H4783]]
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
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
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
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)
Yarmuth
NOES--235
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
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
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
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
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
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 (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
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--8
Foxx
Hastings
Jolly
Marino
Poe (TX)
Sanchez, Loretta
Stutzman
Takai
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2242
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Huffman
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Huffman) 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 184,
noes 240, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 422]
AYES--184
Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clawson (FL)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
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
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
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)
Yarmuth
NOES--240
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
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
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
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
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
Thompson (PA)
[[Page H4784]]
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--9
Foxx
Hastings
Jolly
Marino
Poe (TX)
Sanchez, Loretta
Serrano
Stutzman
Takai
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2245
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Castor) 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 186,
noes 237, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 423]
AYES--186
Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clawson (FL)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
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
Graham
Grayson
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
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
Nugent
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--237
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
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
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
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
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
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 (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
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--10
Foxx
Hastings
Jolly
Joyce
Marino
Poe (TX)
Sanchez, Loretta
Stutzman
Takai
Tiberi
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2249
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Huffman
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Huffman) 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 181,
noes 244, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 424]
AYES--181
Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
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
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
[[Page H4785]]
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
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
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--244
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
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
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
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
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
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
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
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--8
Foxx
Hastings
Jolly
Marino
Poe (TX)
Sanchez, Loretta
Stutzman
Takai
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting Chair (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2252
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 14 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 is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 208,
noes 217, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 425]
AYES--208
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
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
Lamborn
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moolenaar
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
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
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stewart
Stivers
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
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--217
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
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
Hanna
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Joyce
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
LaMalfa
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
Meeks
Meng
Miller (MI)
Mooney (WV)
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stefanik
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walters, Mimi
Walz
[[Page H4786]]
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--8
Foxx
Hastings
Jolly
Marino
Poe (TX)
Sanchez, Loretta
Stutzman
Takai
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting Chair (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2255
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Palmer
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Palmer) 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 175,
noes 250, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 426]
AYES--175
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Babin
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Buchanan
Buck
Burgess
Carter (GA)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Collins (GA)
Conaway
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
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 (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (MS)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
Lamborn
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Massie
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stewart
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--250
Adams
Aguilar
Amodei
Ashford
Barletta
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers (NC)
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibbs
Graham
Granger
Graves (LA)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
LaMalfa
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
McCarthy
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
McSally
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Miller (MI)
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Nolan
Norcross
Nugent
Nunes
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shimkus
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stefanik
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Trott
Tsongas
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--8
Foxx
Hastings
Jolly
Marino
Poe (TX)
Sanchez, Loretta
Stutzman
Takai
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting Chair (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2258
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 426 on H.R. 5538, I
mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yes'' when I should have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico
(Mr. Ben Ray Lujan) 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 219,
noes 207, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 427]
AYES--219
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buck
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chaffetz
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gohmert
Gosar
Graham
Graves (LA)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Lamborn
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Love
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
[[Page H4787]]
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
McSally
Meeks
Meng
Mooney (WV)
Moore
Moulton
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Newhouse
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stewart
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--207
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mullin
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Scalise
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stivers
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
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--7
Hastings
Jolly
Marino
Poe (TX)
Sanchez, Loretta
Stutzman
Takai
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2302
Mr. SIRES and Ms. McSALLY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mrs. Dingell
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan
(Mrs. Dingell) 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 170,
noes 256, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 428]
AYES--170
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--256
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bera
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
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garamendi
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graham
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kilmer
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Kuster
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McDermott
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
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
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
[[Page H4788]]
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--7
Hastings
Jolly
Marino
Poe (TX)
Sanchez, Loretta
Stutzman
Takai
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2305
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Cartwright
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright) 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 195,
noes 231, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 429]
AYES--195
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
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
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Miller (MI)
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stefanik
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--231
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
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
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
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stewart
Stivers
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
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--7
Hastings
Jolly
Marino
Poe (TX)
Sanchez, Loretta
Stutzman
Takai
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2308
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Becerra
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Becerra) 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 190,
noes 236, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 430]
AYES--190
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
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
Hanna
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
[[Page H4789]]
Sanchez, Linda T.
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)
Yarmuth
NOES--236
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
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
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
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--7
Hastings
Jolly
Marino
Poe (TX)
Sanchez, Loretta
Stutzman
Takai
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2311
Mr. CURBELO of Florida changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Peters
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Peters) 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 182,
noes 244, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 431]
AYES--182
Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
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
Hanna
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
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
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)
Yarmuth
NOES--244
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
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
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
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
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
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--7
Hastings
Jolly
Marino
Poe (TX)
Sanchez, Loretta
Stutzman
Takai
[[Page H4790]]
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2314
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Peters
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Peters) 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 185,
noes 241, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 432]
AYES--185
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
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
Hanna
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
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
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)
Yarmuth
NOES--241
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
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
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
Sewell (AL)
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
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--7
Hastings
Jolly
Marino
Poe (TX)
Sanchez, Loretta
Stutzman
Takai
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2317
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Byrne) having assumed the chair, Mr. Collins of Georgia, 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.
5538) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior,
environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2017, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________