[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 7, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H1451-H1458]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1119, SATISFYING ENERGY NEEDS AND
SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R.
1917, BLOCKING REGULATORY INTERFERENCE FROM CLOSING KILNS ACT OF 2017
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 762 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 762
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1119) to
establish the bases by which the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall issue, implement, and
enforce certain emission limitations and allocations for
existing electric utility steam generating units that convert
coal refuse into energy. All points of
[[Page H1452]]
order against consideration of the bill are waived. The
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill
shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions
in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and
on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1917) to allow
for judicial review of any final rule addressing national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for brick and
structural clay products or for clay ceramics manufacturing
before requiring compliance with such rule. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. An
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 115-62 shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized
for 1 hour.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Wyoming?
There was no objection.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 762, which
provides for the consideration of H.R. 1119, the Satisfying Energy
Needs and Saving the Environment--or SENSE--Act, and provides for
consideration of H.R. 1917, the Blocking Regulatory Interference from
Closing Kilns--or BRICK--Act of 2017.
Mr. Speaker, for many years our domestic energy industry has suffered
under unnecessary and politically motivated regulations and burdensome,
bureaucratic red tape, prohibiting growth and innovation. President
Trump and his administration have been working hard, along with this
Congress, to undo the policies which have so harmed our domestic energy
industry.
Today's rule allows for the consideration of two bills, which will
further those efforts and reform our regulatory framework so our energy
producers can do their jobs more efficiently and economically, along
with safeguards that will still be in place to protect health and
safety. These bills provide a commonsense solution to tailor EPA
emission standards, and they provide reasonable compliance timelines
for the specific regulated industries.
The first bill, H.R. 1119, the SENSE Act, is sponsored by my
colleague, Mr. Rothfus from Pennsylvania. This bill would provide for
targeted modifications to the EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards,
MATS, as it applies to coal refuse-to-energy facilities. The EPA has
included certain emissions limits in the new standards that are just
simply not achievable for these refuse plants.
These specialized power plants have been developed to recycle coal
refuse by using it as an energy source to generate affordable, reliable
electricity. These facilities have thus far removed 214 million tons of
coal refuse from the environment, at no expense to taxpayers.
In addition to helping address coal refuse, these facilities have
created an estimated 1,200 direct jobs and 4,000 indirect jobs in areas
that have been economically distressed for many years.
{time} 1230
There are 19 of these coal refuse-to-energy facilities, many of which
are at direct risk of being shut down absent passage of the SENSE Act.
The SENSE Act would create a way for coal refuse-to-energy facilities
to continue their much-needed work by allowing these plants to
demonstrate compliance with EPA's hydrochloric acid standard by using
sulfur dioxide as a proxy and assuming that a 93 percent reduction in
sulfur dioxide demonstrates compliance with the hydrochloric acid
emissions reduction standard.
The bill would still require these coal refuse-to-energy facilities
to be subject to emissions limitations and to achieve substantial
declines in emissions; but it would do so in a way that these
facilities can achieve while also remaining operational, recognizing
the crucial role they play in providing energy, and helping to clean up
coal refuse sites.
Mr. Speaker, our rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1917,
the Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns, or BRICK, Act
of 2017 sponsored by my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Johnson). This bill
will help preserve America's brickmaking industry and its 7,000 jobs
and protects them from an EPA rule that created a far too rushed
compliance timetable for businesses across the Nation.
The emissions standards in this rule apply to kilns at brick and
structural clay products manufacturing facilities and at clay ceramic
manufacturing facilities. Industry has estimated the cost of this rule,
if allowed to go into effect, would potentially exceed $100 million
annually, which is four times higher than what the EPA initially
estimated. This is yet one more example of how poorly thought-out and
misguided regulations are harming industries and have been a severe
hindrance to the kind of job creation we know we can now see unleashed
across our Nation.
We have got to ensure businesses have time to comply and that
regulations make sense. We should not force them into arbitrary time
lines that will make them shut down. H.R. 1917 provides that needed
time and makes compliance possible.
The BRICK Act also includes the text of the Relief from New Source
Performance Standards. This legislation was authored by my Democratic
colleague from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson). The provision in this bill
will help both manufacturers and users of wood heaters by providing
relief from overly burdensome and arbitrary time lines that have been
imposed by the EPA's New Source Performance Standards. Specifically,
this bill provides an additional 3 years for businesses to comply with
this rule.
Wood heaters are an affordable source of home heating, especially in
rural America, and it is critically important that we protect this low-
cost source of heating. The New Source Performance Standards for wood
heaters, which took effect in 2015, include a provision that is proving
nearly impossible, once again, for manufacturers to comply with as they
are struggling to design compliant models in the short timeframe
allowed by the agency. As a result, we have seen workers laid off and
other companies fearing that they will not be able to stay in business
after 2020.
Wood heater users in many low-income households across the country
face the likelihood of having to pay more and having a reduced product
choice. This is one more example of Federal overreach in which the
agency failed to take into account the real impact of these regulations
on everyday Americans across our country.
It is crucial that we pass the BRICK Act, which would extend the
deadline for the second phase of the wood heater standards from 2020 to
2023, and provide time for meaningful judicial review of the Brick and
Structural Clay Products: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants before the owners and operations of these facilities are
required to make significant and potentially irreversible decisions
regarding capital investments, or driving them out of business
altogether.
Mr. Speaker, we must ensure emissions standards are reasonable and do
not unnecessarily cripple small businesses, which we know are the
drivers of our economy.
Mr. Speaker, therefore, I encourage support for the rule for these
important bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H1453]]
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like first to thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming
(Ms. Cheney), my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for
debate.
Today's bills would modify Clean Air Act regulations, or the act
itself, to give a handout to specified industries to emit more
pollution into the air. These bills, in my view, would result in more
smog, more fine particle pollution, and more toxic air pollution. The
effects would be worse, resulting in more asthma attacks, more kids in
emergency rooms, more bronchitis, more cancer diagnoses, and more birth
defects.
Mr. Speaker, these bills represent a fundamentally unfair and deeply
troubling approach to regulation. In bringing up these bills, the
Republican-controlled Congress is granting favors to special interests
at the expense of public health. Shocking, but not surprising. By
bringing up these bills, the majority intends to overturn evidence-
based, scientific decisions made by the Environmental Protection
Agency, States, and courts after a transparent and extensive process.
To date, the Trump administration, with the help of the Republican-
controlled Congress, has targeted 67 environmental rules. One of those
rules was the requirement that mining companies prove they have the
financial wherewithal to clean up their pollution. Another is the rule
regulating airborne mercury emissions from fossil fuel power plants.
And most recently, the administration announced it was targeting oil
rig safety regulations, regulations that were implemented after the
2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill, a spill that burned for
36 hours, released 4.9 billion barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of
Mexico, spread 3,850 square miles, and resulted in billions of dollars
of losses to the U.S. fishing industry and the Gulf Coast tourist
industry.
Mr. Speaker, since passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, America has
made substantial progress in cleaning up this Nation's air. We have
done this by following a fundamental principle: holding polluters
accountable for their pollution.
Instead of following this commonsense, bedrock principle, my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle insist on creating loopholes
for a few favored industries: waste coal plants, brick manufacturers,
and those who manufacture residential wood heaters.
Mr. Speaker, the first of these bills, the ironically titled SENSE
Act, weakens the critical Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule, which
established the first national standards to address power plant
emissions of toxic air pollutants. This Mercury and Air Toxics
Standards rule requires coal-fired power plants to meet emissions
standards for mercury, other metals, and acid gases.
Has the majority engaged in any in-depth analysis of what will happen
when this rule is weakened? Has the majority filled its ranks with
experts, scientists, and doctors who will be able to put forth a case
for why undermining this rule is good policy? Of course not.
Mr. Speaker, here is what we know: The Environmental Protection
Agency estimates that for every dollar spent to reduce pollution under
this rule American families receive up to $9 in health benefits. In
fact, the EPA estimated that, in 2016, the MATS rule would avoid up to
11,000 premature deaths, 2,800 cases of chronic bronchitis, 4,700 heart
attacks, 130,000 cases of aggravated asthma, 5,700 hospital and
emergency room visits, 6,300 cases of acute bronchitis, 140,000 cases
of respiratory symptoms, and 540,000 days when people miss work. My
Republican colleagues want to do away with those health benefits and,
instead, permit favored industries to pollute more.
Mr. Speaker, the second measure combines two bills: H.R. 1917, the
BRICK Act; and H.R. 453, the Relief from New Source Performance
Standards Act. The BRICK Act unjustifiably delays reductions in toxic
air pollution from brick manufacturers by allowing them to continue to
pollute until all their lawsuits are exhausted. The bill throws out
existing judicial process by providing a blanket extension for any
compliance deadline, regardless of the merits of the case.
Under well established legal norms, the court of appeals for the
district circuit may stay a rule during litigation if it finds that the
party seeking the stay has demonstrated that there is a likelihood of
success on the merits, the prospect of irreparable harm to the party
requesting the stay, and, most importantly, whether granting the stay
is in the public interest. To date, not one of the industry litigants
have even asked the court to stay the Brick and Structural Clay
Products rule. Not one. Presumably it is because they recognize that
they cannot meet this legal standard.
Mr. Speaker, the existing judicial process is the appropriate method
to seek a stay of the rule and is the preferable method to unnecessary
congressional intervention proposed by the BRICK Act.
This brings me to H.R. 453, the Relief from New Source Performance
Standards Act, which delays cleaner burning wood stoves until 2023, on
top of the 5 years manufacturers already had to comply, exposing
communities to additional years of unhealthy fine particle pollution,
carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds.
In 2015, the EPA strengthened the pollution control requirements for
new residential wood heaters. The new standards would cut fine particle
pollution and volatile organic compounds from new wood heaters by
almost 70 percent and will cut carbon monoxide pollution by 62 percent.
The EPA even included provisions in the rule to help manufacturers
achieve the new standards, giving the manufacturers 5 years to comply.
Mr. Speaker, these pollutants combine with other pollutants in the
air from smog, black carbon, and benzene, harming the health of the
American people, particularly our kids and seniors, who will have to
pay for these special interest breaks with their health and, in some
cases, with their lives. These three bills sacrifice Americans' health
with additional years of unnecessary pollution.
Mr. Speaker, it is as disappointing as it is frustrating that we come
here today to debate bills that will increase pollution in our country
and also have very little hope--let me underscore that: very little
hope--of ever becoming law. We have real work to do in this place, and
these bills are not that work.
This body must turn its attention to finally addressing the gun
violence epidemic that has taken over our country. Most recently at
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, in a
district adjacent to the district that I am privileged to serve, less
than a month ago, a 19-year-old legally purchased a semiautomatic AR-15
and used it to methodically murder 14 of his former classmates and
three teachers.
What was the response of this body? Well, we did prayers and
thoughts, which is good. But did my Republican colleagues bring to the
floor a bill that would ban assault weapons? Did they bring to the
floor legislation to close the gun show loophole? Did they bring to the
floor legislation that would raise the minimum purchase age for rifles?
Or mandatory comprehensive background checks for gun buyers and ban
bump stocks? Or allow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to
study gun violence?
{time} 1245
No, Mr. Speaker. Instead this body offered, as I said, its thoughts
and prayers.
And I have said it before and I will say it again today: those who
stand in the way of legislation that will address our country's gun
violence epidemic are increasingly culpable for its needless
continuation.
So what we choose to talk about is pollution. What we should be
talking about is the gun epidemic, and I will get to DACA a little bit
later in my closing.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), my colleague and the sponsor of the SENSE
Act.
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, just listening to the other side's comments about the
SENSE Act, I am wondering if they
[[Page H1454]]
have read the same bill or if they have ever visited the hills of
western Pennsylvania where we see the environmental damage that waste
coal piles have done and the tremendous progress that we have seen over
the last number of decades in actually cleaning up the environment.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in support of H. Res. 762, the rule
that is under consideration, and I want to talk about the SENSE Act,
which is included within this rule, H.R. 1119.
This is a pro-environment bill. The purpose of the bill is to ensure
that coal refuse-to-energy facilities can be held to strict but
achievable standards.
To be clear, these plants comply with nearly all standards as it is,
including mercury emissions. We are talking about a modification, a
customization, as it were, in recognition of the tremendous benefit
that these plants have made to the environment.
I have introduced versions of this bill during prior Congresses, and
I am hopeful that this bill can become law. It enjoys bipartisan
support.
As many of you know, coal refuse is a by-product of historic coal
mining operations. Throughout many parts of coal country, towering
black mounds of this material loom beside cities and towns, especially
in Pennsylvania and in West Virginia.
I would invite my colleague from Florida to come up to western
Pennsylvania and take a look at the scarred landscape and polluted
rivers we have there as a result of these coal refuse piles.
Many of these piles can smoulder, can spontaneously combust, giving
off emissions with no controls, zero controls. They catch fire, burning
uncontrollably, sending hazardous smoke into the air and into
surrounding communities. Local governments are then forced to spend
increasingly scarce taxpayer resources fighting these fires.
Rainwater leaches terrible chemicals from these mounds, polluting
nearby rivers and streams.
Fortunately, the coal refuse-to-energy industry turns this material
into energy, while cleaning up and remediating many polluted sites, at
no cost to the taxpayer.
These power plants are really the only practical solution to this
massive environmental problem that we have in Pennsylvania and West
Virginia that could cost, in Pennsylvania alone, an estimated $2
billion to remediate. This is being done without taxpayer funding right
now, the cleanup, because of these plants.
For several years, I have spoken about the tremendous work being done
by hardworking folks in this industry, which I have seen firsthand. I
have stood on coal refuse piles in the process of remediation, and I
have also walked on restored sites, many of which are parks and
meadows, now regarded as community assets rather than liabilities. I
have seen the streams that were once dead that now have fish.
Despite all the good that this industry does for Pennsylvania and
West Virginia, five coal refuse-to-energy facilities are under threat
from Federal regulations, seemingly incapable of needed flexibility to
accommodate private sector work that is actually improving the
environment.
If rigid EPA orthodoxy makes no exceptions for this pro-environment
industry, it is not just the environment that will continue to suffer.
These plants support family-sustaining jobs, and thousands of jobs are
at stake if these plants are regulated out of business, both direct and
indirect.
I should note that many of these jobs are in localities that have
already been hit exceptionally hard by both the last recession and the
ongoing opioid crisis.
The people expect us to stand for them, especially when their
livelihoods come under threat from heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all
Washington policies. So as we debate the SENSE Act, please keep in mind
what the bill's supporters are fighting for.
Here is what is going to happen if this law doesn't pass: rivers and
streams aren't going to come back to life; hillsides aren't going to be
restored; and these piles, they can spontaneously combust, again, with
no emissions control whatsoever.
The SENSE Act is about protecting family-sustaining jobs and ensuring
the continuation of the environmental success story of the coal refuse-
to-energy industry. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the rule and
the SENSE Act.
Again, are we capable of making judgments in this House? Are we
capable of customizing one-size-fits all.
The EPA, frankly, has recognized the work of this industry. ``Coal
refuse piles,'' the EPA has said, ``are an environmental concern
because of acid seepage and leachate production, spontaneous
combustion, and low soil fertility. Units that burn coal refuse provide
multimedia environmental benefits by combining the production of energy
with the removal of coal refuse piles and by reclaiming land for
productive use. Consequently, because of the unique environmental
benefits that coal refuse-fired EGUs provide,'' the EPA said, ``these
units warrant special consideration. . . .''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. CHENEY. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will see the benefits
that can come from this. This isn't a special interest carveout, unless
you consider cleaning up the environment in western Pennsylvania to be
a special interest.
Again, are we capable of making judgments about what this town puts
out, one size fits all, seemingly with blinders on, not having the
ability to recognize that in certain circumstances customization is
appropriate?
That is what this underlying bill, the SENSE Act, does. It does make
sense: satisfying energy needs and saving the environment. I hope my
colleagues would see the sense in that and work with us to allow the
environmental cleanup to continue and to protect hundreds of family-
sustaining jobs across western Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, 6 months ago, Donald John Trump decided to end the DACA
program, a program which gave hundreds of thousands of hardworking
young people hope for the future. He gave Congress until March 5--that
was 2 days ago--to pass a bill. Since then, House Democrats have tried
23 times to pass bipartisan legislation to fix this problem. Donald
John Trump even tweeted: ``Total inaction on DACA by Dems. Where are
you?''
Well, Mr. President, where we are is right here, waiting for this
deal that you say can be made. Yet, on 23 occasions, it was our friends
on the other side of the aisle who refused to make a deal and rejected
even considering the bipartisan Dream Act that was deadlined by you,
Donald John Trump, on March 5.
We need to address this vital issue now. Approximately 120 Dreamers
lose their status each day. Over 22,000 have lost their status since
the administration ended the program.
Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues: Let's do something now to lift
the cloud that hangs over these young people who are American in every
way except on paper.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer
for the 24th time an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the
Dream Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation will help solve the
problem created by Donald John Trump's decision to end the DACA
program.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair, not to a perceived viewing audience.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Costa), my good friend, a member of the Agriculture and
Natural Resources Committees of this Congress, who will discuss our
proposal.
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Hastings), for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, the United States, as we know, is a nation of
immigrants, past and present. For hundreds of years, people have come
to our shores
[[Page H1455]]
in search of a better life for themselves and for their children.
Immigrants from across the world have made incredible contributions
to our country. We know that as fact. From starting businesses to
healing the sick, to harvesting our fields and putting food on
America's dinner table, to ensuring safety and pursuing justice,
immigrants have made America a great nation because of their
contributions. Yet there have been times when our Nation has struggled
to live up to our own ideals, and right now, I think, is one of those
times.
This week, the President's deadline, March 5, 2 days past, to end the
DACA program took effect, threatening hundreds of thousands of lives of
Dreamers. Now, let us remember, this is because of President Trump's
unilateral action last September to repeal DACA that we are in the
position that we are in today.
Mr. Speaker, I am standing here with the Dreamers, with over 80
percent of Americans, and with many of my colleagues who believe we
ought to fix this problem. I ask Speaker Ryan and I call upon this
Chamber to vote now on the bipartisan, bicameral Dream Act.
This bill would provide permanent legislative protections for our
Dreamers, immigrants who were brought to the United States' shores as
children at the average age of 6 years. For them, America is the only
country they have ever known. The Dream Act will provide these young
people with legal status and, ultimately, a path to citizenship.
In my district, there are thousands of DACA recipients, thousands of
Dreamers, currently, over 600 at the University of California, Merced,
and more than that at my alma mater, Fresno State.
President Castro at Fresno State and I had a meeting with a group of
Dreamers recently. Let me tell you about one student whom I met, who
would be helped by the Dream Act, Rodolfo. What a story he had to tell,
along with the other students.
Rodolfo came to the United States with his mother and siblings when
he was 4 years old, at great risk. He is set to graduate from Fresno
State with a degree in chemistry this year.
DACA gave him the ability to work through school and help his family.
And after all, isn't that the immigrant way?
Just last week, Rodolfo got some great news. He learned that he was
admitted to the University of California, San Francisco's School of
Pharmacy, one of the best schools in the Nation. His dream as a Dreamer
is to use his education and skills to give back to our communities by
providing healthcare to underserved communities.
Rodolfo, we want Dreamers like you here in the United States. There
are over 800,000 of you, all contributing and giving. Many of you serve
in our armed services today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to bring the Dream Act to the floor
for a vote. Support this legislation. They should not be held hostage
for other agendas that are out there, and clearly this is the case.
This is common sense. I ask my colleagues to do the right thing.
Let's bring the Dream Act to the floor as soon as we can.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Johnson), the sponsor of the BRICK Act.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
speak.
Mr. Speaker, I am actually a little bit confused. I thought this was
supposed to be a debate on a rule dealing with overturning onerous EPA
regulations. Instead, our colleagues on the left want to talk about
something totally nongermane and change the subject. And then we wonder
why the American people get so frustrated that this institution can't
seem to address its big issues.
{time} 1300
I also heard a little bit ago an impassioned claim by my colleague on
the left over here that the legislation that we are talking about today
somehow flies in the face of the courts. That is not true because the
courts have already overturned this regulation one time and set it
aside, and it has cost the industries millions and millions of dollars
that they shouldn't have had to spend.
I also heard it claimed that it flies in the face of commonsense,
science-based evidence. That is not true because, if it were, then the
courts wouldn't have made the decision to set it aside in the first
place.
H.R. 1917, the BRICK Act, is about regulatory common sense, Mr.
Speaker, but it is also about preserving good-paying jobs in rural
communities across America. Brickmakers and tile manufacturers are
primarily small businesses, and their product is critical for our
infrastructure. They have built some of the most iconic towns and
buildings across America, and this bill will help ensure that these
small businesses are able to continue to do exactly that.
The EPA's current Brick MACT rule, finalized in 2015, would impose
millions of dollars in costs on these small businesses, all before
judicial review of the rule is complete. And while the EPA, under the
former administration, estimates that the annual costs to comply with
the rule will be about $25 million, other estimates have projected the
annual costs to be up to $100 million or greater.
For a facility with two kilns, which is the industry average, the
costs are estimated to be $4.4 million. Securing capital for these
projects will be very difficult, and some worry that it will simply not
be available considering that these compliance costs will not improve
plant productivity nor help its bottom line. What is worse is that
these costs are over and above the tens of millions of dollars spent by
the industry to comply with an earlier version of the rule vacated by
the D.C. Circuit Court in 2007.
H.R. 1917 simply allows for the consideration and completion of any
judicial review regarding the 2015 regulation before requiring
compliance. For an industry that has faced so much regulatory
uncertainty, through rules, vacated rules, and now new regulation, H.R.
1917 will help inject a bit of much-needed regulatory certainty back
into this industry.
Additionally, this bill provides regulatory relief for our wood
heater manufacturers, which helps provide an affordable source of heat
for many low-income and rural households. EPA regulations set to take
effect in 2020 are causing some manufacturers to already lay off
workers. This industry needs more time to comply, and a provision
within H.R. 1917 will simply extend that compliance deadline from 2020
to 2023. If left unchanged, product choice will diminish, prices will
rise, and more jobs will be lost.
Mr. Speaker, we must ensure our Federal agencies are not needlessly
regulating companies out of business. Brick manufacturers have suffered
heavy losses since the recession, losing about 45 percent of jobs
between 2005 and 2012. Increased compliance costs from these EPA
regulations will only lead to more job losses and consolidations within
this primarily family-owned business industry.
We owe this industry regulatory certainty. I urge my colleagues to
support this rule and to support H.R. 1917 because, if we don't, if the
brick industry gets shut down because of these onerous rules, we are
going to start building buildings, Mr. Speaker, out of straw and sticks
instead of bricks.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have watched this last year as members of the
Republican majority worked diligently to eliminate Federal
environmental regulations that serve to keep the American people safe
from harmful toxins in their air and water.
I couldn't help but be amused by my colleague on the right's comments
at the end that we will be using sticks instead of bricks. Very clever.
But the real truth of the matter is, in certain parts of the world--and
I would urge him to visit some of them--there are examples of things
other than brick for construction. I have no quarrel with the brick
industry. I just urge--and in many instances they are already doing
it--that they do everything they can not to pollute the environment.
I have watched members in the Republican majority work relentlessly
for special interest groups instead of working for all of the American
people. I have watched members of the Republican majority put the wish
list of the powerful corporate gun lobby ahead of the safety of the
American people.
[[Page H1456]]
On Monday, we all watched a self-imposed Republican deadline slip by,
to the detriment of thousands upon thousands of young people in our
country who we have identified as Dreamers, young people who know no
other country as home than the United States of America. Every day of
inaction on the part of my friends across the aisle means another day
that families are needlessly and cruelly made to live under the threat
of being torn asunder.
My colleague, Lois Frankel, and I were at a men's club before a
couple of hundred of men in the Valencia Cove in Boynton Beach. The
question was put to both of us: Why do we support illegal immigrants in
this country?
We tried to make the distinction for him with reference to Dreamers
and the fact that all of these young people were brought here against
their volition by their parents. So it is the Dreamers that we are
supporting. I think he finally understood the importance of our doing
comprehensive immigration reform in this country.
Democrats have offered to bring the Dream Act to the floor now 24
times. We are going to give them one more chance. We have done it 23,
and every single time this effort has been blocked by the majority.
To address my friend who correctly cited that we were bringing this
up: It is not so much to change the topic of the day. We don't have
that prerogative. But we do have embedded in this rule the prerogative
to bring a previous question, and that can be on any subject that we
choose. What we choose to do is to prioritize things that we consider
to be important. It would not have blocked this particular measure.
But the fact is, enough is enough. The President says he wants to fix
this problem. The Speaker says he wants to fix this problem. We on this
side of the aisle clearly want to fix this problem. So let's do it now.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, on the previous
question, and on the underlying bills.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I enjoy very much serving on the Rules Committee with
all of my colleagues on the committee. One of the things that I am
often asked because I am a new Member of this body is: What has
surprised me most about being a Member of Congress?
My answer is: Often you see on the outside what looks like a lot of
vitriol between the parties, but, in actuality, I believe that every
Member of this body is here for the right reasons. They are here
because they want to serve the people of their districts, the people of
their States, and the people of this Nation.
I think it is crucially important, Mr. Speaker, particularly when we
are talking about something as sacred as the safety of our children,
that we not engage in the kind of partisan attacks, that we not exploit
tragedy, that we not engage in the kind of questioning of motives that
I just heard my colleague on the other side of the aisle do.
I know my colleague, Mr. Hastings, knows that we may have
disagreements, but the reason that I, as a mother, feel so strongly
about the Second Amendment is because I want to keep our kids safe. I
know he knows that my beliefs about the Second Amendment, though they
are different from his, are not based upon any campaign donations and
any campaign contributions. I know he knows that they are based very
firmly on a fundamental commitment to the importance of the Second
Amendment as part of what makes this Nation safe, as part of what makes
our individuals secure, and how important it is for us not to use this
tragedy to take steps--that may make people feel better--that
fundamentally violate our constitutional rights and that won't keep our
kids safe.
When you go down the path that we have heard so many on the other
side of the aisle suggest we go down, whether they are talking about
banning entire classes of weapons, whether they are talking about
expanding background checks so that they are somehow universal--our
background check system right now is broken. It doesn't work.
We have a situation in which States are not reporting in the way that
they ought to report. So when I hear my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle suggest that what we ought to do, frankly, is expand a system
that is failing and call that progress, I can't help but think that
that is pretty much their standard operating procedure: No matter what
the policy is, let's expand the broken system, let's ignore whether or
not it is really working, and let's call it progress.
Mr. Speaker, I will not be a party to that. I will not be a party in
a situation in which we have had tragedy after tragedy, a situation in
which in this most recent tragedy law enforcement fundamentally at all
levels failed our children. When you have individuals inside of a
school who were killed because armed officers outside the school failed
to enter, when you have children who are killed because call after call
after call to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and to the local law
enforcement officials went unheeded because specific tips about this
particular individual went unheeded, that is not a time, Mr. Speaker,
for us to say: What we ought to do then is prevent law-abiding
Americans from having access to the firearms that they need to defend
and protect themselves.
I think, Mr. Speaker, if you look at what those on the other side of
the aisle are attempting to do with respect to the debate about guns
and the debate about school safety, it is critically important for all
of us to stand up and say: No, we will not go down a path that is going
to violate constitutional rights, that will not keep our children safe,
and find some kind of false comfort in that.
When you are talking about the bills that are before us today, Mr.
Speaker, we are in a similar situation. We have had 8 years in the
Obama administration where they imposed regulation after regulation
after regulation in the name of somehow protecting the environment.
Mr. Speaker, President Obama's own EPA Administrator testified in
front of Congress that the Clean Power Plan would, in fact, not have
any sort of positive impact on the environment or on global
temperatures, yet they imposed it anyway, imposing massive costs on our
industry in the name, I suppose, of trying to feel better and trying to
feel like they are doing something. But what they are really doing is
actually putting ourselves in a situation where we are harming small
businesses, where we are strangling them, and where we are preventing
their ability to grow and to thrive. We know we can do that, Mr.
Speaker, in a way that also protects our environment.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Rothfus and Mr.
Johnson, for their work on these very important bills.
In Wyoming, Mr. Speaker, we know that our coal and our fossil fuels
are national treasures. They are absolutely crucial to providing the
power that runs this Nation. I am proud of all that we in this body and
President Trump together have done to roll back dangerous and ill-
advised Obama-era regulations that have been aimed at killing our
fossil fuel industry.
We can no longer go down the path of allowing these regulations to
exist in a way that devastates industry, puts the fundamental
reliability of our electricity and of our energy grid at risk, and
achieves no measurable impact for the environment. It is long past time
for that indefensible approach to end. That is what we are doing here
today.
These are good bills. They are important bills. They will take this
next step in rolling back the kind of overwhelming regulation that we
have seen, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of both the rule and the underlying
bills.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 762 Offered by Mr. Hastings
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
3440) to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment
of status of certain individuals who are long-term United
States residents and who entered the United States as
children and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill
[[Page H1457]]
and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At
the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3440.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on ordering
the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229,
nays 183, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 96]
YEAS--229
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Perry
Pittenger
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--183
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Yarmuth
[[Page H1458]]
NOT VOTING--18
Barr
Cramer
Cummings
Hice, Jody B.
Johnson, E. B.
Lieu, Ted
Meeks
Nolan
Pearce
Poe (TX)
Polis
Shea-Porter
Shuster
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Stivers
Waters, Maxine
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1339
Messrs. SCHNEIDER, SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York, BISHOP of
Georgia, GENE GREEN of Texas, CLEAVER, ELLISON, and RUSH changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. UPTON, McCLINTOCK, WALDEN, and SMITH of New Jersey changed
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 227,
noes 185, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 97]
AYES--227
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palmer
Paulsen
Perry
Pittenger
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--185
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--18
Barr
Cramer
Cummings
Gabbard
Hice, Jody B.
Hollingsworth
Johnson, E. B.
Lieu, Ted
Nolan
Palazzo
Pearce
Poe (TX)
Polis
Shea-Porter
Shuster
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Stivers
{time} 1346
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table
____________________