[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 75 (Wednesday, May 9, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H3844-H3850]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3053, NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY 
                         AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2017

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 879 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 879

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3053) to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 
     1982, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to 
     consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     115-69. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 
     amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text. 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 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

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 879, providing for consideration of 
an important piece of legislation, H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy 
Amendments Act of 2018. The rule provides for consideration of this 
measure under a structured rule, making three amendments offered by the 
minority in order. This legislation passed out of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis by a vote of 
49-4, and has been a comprehensive effort spearheaded by my colleague 
from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) over several Congresses.
  Mr. Speaker, in 39 States and in 121 communities across this country, 
including in the Tri-Cities community in my home district, in the great 
State of Washington, the Federal Government continues to fail to meet 
its obligation to collect and dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste. This spent fuel and waste is generated as a 
result of commercial nuclear power production, and as a byproduct of 
our Nation's nuclear defense activities, including used fuel from 
nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers and from the legacy 
waste created from uranium and plutonium development as nuclear weapons 
deterrents.
  No one knows the magnitude of impact stemming from the development of 
these nuclear deterrents more than the Tri-Cities community, where the 
Hanford Site played a major role within the Manhattan Project during 
World War II to develop the first atomic bomb. It was because of the 
extraordinary work of the more than 50,000 workers at Hanford that we 
were able to end World War II, and later the Cold War.
  However, this work came with great repercussions. The Hanford Site 
contains 56 million gallons of high-level radioactive waste, and is one 
of the world's largest nuclear cleanup efforts. Fifty-six million 
gallons, Mr. Speaker, enough to fill this room that we are standing in 
today more than 20 times.
  This amount of radioactive waste has been a legacy issue in my 
district since the 1940s. My constituents fully understand the impacts 
holding this waste has on the region. The Federal Government must keep 
its commitment to collect and dispose of it to a permanent repository.
  Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy 
Amendments Act of 2018, would make great strides in addressing this 
very problem. H.R. 3053 would, rightfully, move forward with the 
licensing of the Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada as the first 
permanent geological repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
radioactive waste.
  First designated by Congress in 1987 as the location for these 
materials to be disposed of, the site has undergone extensive 
scientific and technical evaluations. In 2002, the U.S. Department of 
Energy concluded that Yucca Mountain met all of the requirements to 
serve as a permanent repository. In

[[Page H3845]]

2008, DOE applied to construct the repository, but the Obama 
administration illegally terminated the effort for what appeared to be 
political, rather than scientific, reasons. Fortunately, for our 
Nation, and for the communities like the Tri-Cities, this 
administration has stated its firm commitment to getting this project 
back on track and moving forward.
  Not only does central Washington continue to store the legacy waste 
from Hanford, but it is also home to the only nuclear power plant in 
the Pacific Northwest, the Columbia Generating Station. While H.R. 3053 
provides for a path forward for a long-term solution for waste disposal 
at Yucca Mountain, it also authorizes DOE to contract with a private 
company to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel for the very first 
time.
  Communities that host nuclear power production sites across the 
country have, for far too long, been held responsible for the 
management of spent fuel, even though, under law, it is the legal 
obligation of the Federal Government to collect and dispose of it. This 
legislation directs DOE to initiate a program to consolidate and 
temporarily store commercial spent nuclear fuel during the development, 
construction, and initial operation of a repository.
  H.R. 3053 provides for other innovative and necessary management 
tools for waste, including encouraging DOE to take ownership of spent 
nuclear fuels from facilities that have ceased commercial operation, 
and allowing the Department to enter into contract with private storage 
facilities.
  The legislation also protects taxpayers by reducing legal 
liabilities. Consumers of nuclear energy across the country have paid 
over $42 billion into the nuclear waste fund, with nearly $40 billion 
still waiting to be spent to dispose of nuclear waste. This includes 
more than $200 million from Washington State ratepayers.
  What have they received from the Federal Government for paying of 
these fees, Mr. Speaker?
  Absolutely nothing. Not one ounce of waste has been collected, which 
is the very purpose of the fund.
  This legislation will reform the fund to protect ratepayers by 
assuring there is a definite answer on the Yucca Mountain repository 
prior to restarting the fee collection.
  Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of visiting the Yucca Mountain 
facility. While it may seem to some like just a dusty 5-mile tunnel 
bored 1,000 feet deep in a remote Nevada desert, I found it to be an 
impressive site and full of potential. The Federal Government has spent 
decades, and billions of American taxpayer dollars, studying the best 
place for a repository. The conclusion was that Yucca Mountain is now 
the legal repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive 
waste under the law.

  I cannot express more ardently the importance of moving this effort 
forward, both for my district and districts around the Nation. This 
legislation takes a great leap forward for a long-term solution, while 
also tackling serious impacts and disparities of the current situation 
facing these communities.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a straightforward rule, allowing for considering 
of H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018. I 
encourage my colleagues to support the rule, as well as the underlying 
legislation, to address this vital issue for our entire Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) 
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the rule for consideration of 
this measure, H.R. 3053.
  As my good friend alluded to, this legislation has bipartisan support 
and takes an important step towards permanently securing nuclear waste 
in our country.

                              {time}  1230

  Thirty-six years ago, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. 
In doing so, this institution created a formal process for constructing 
a permanent geological repository for the growing amount of nuclear 
waste across our country.
  This particular provision established a scientifically based, 
multistage process for selecting an eventual site of permanent storage 
for highly radioactive nuclear waste, delineated the Federal 
Government's responsibilities for the transportation of spent nuclear 
fuel, and created a dedicated funding source for disposing of nuclear 
material.
  Five years after passing the NWPA and following significant 
congressional review of the Department of Energy studies, it was 
determined that the facility be built at Yucca Mountain. However, after 
many subsequent years of planning, licensing, and construction, the 
project has stalled--at a cost of tens of billions of dollars.
  The question of how to dispose of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear 
waste has been an ongoing problem in our country for decades. Even with 
the statutory requirements put in place by the NWPA nearly four decades 
ago, no permanent solution is currently available for safely storing 
high-level radioactive waste in a consolidated, secure location. 
Rather, spent nuclear fuel is stored at nuclear reactors across the 
country. Many of these facilities have been shut down, or soon will be, 
without any solution to the long-term problem.
  For obvious reasons, the issue of nuclear waste storage at plants 
across the country is of great concern to the surrounding communities, 
especially as some nuclear plants are shuttered early. The longer we 
wait, the greater the problem will become.
  H.R. 3053, the underlying legislation, directs the Secretary of the 
Department of Energy to create a program to consolidate and temporarily 
store commercial spent nuclear fuel during the development, 
construction, and initial operation of a national repository. The 
legislation provides the Energy Department with consolidated storage 
options to help fulfill the Federal Government's obligations to take 
possession of spent nuclear fuel in other States that are waiting for a 
permanent repository.
  This bill, although I have some concerns, is a good step forward. 
This is a complicated issue, and I believe this institution has come 
together to present at least a viable option for addressing a very 
serious need.
  Mr. Speaker, in taking up this legislation, the Rules Committee has 
acted for the second time in just a few weeks to bring bipartisan 
legislation to the House floor. While the bill we are debating today is 
certainly not perfect, it is, nonetheless, an example of what can be 
accomplished through compromise and bipartisan cooperation. This type 
of process should not be the exception to the rule. It should be the 
standard operating procedure for the House of Representatives.
  I mention this because we all know this is, by and large, not the 
case. Instead of working together, we have witnessed dozens of 
controversial and partisan bills pushed through the House through a 
closed process designed to silence the minority and even voices within 
the Republican majority. That is wrong, and for the sake of this 
institution, it cannot continue.
  Using the closed process, my Republican friends recently pushed 
through one of the largest tax giveaways in American history. They did 
so at the expense of middle class families across the country, passing 
the bill without so much as a single hearing or bipartisan 
conversation.
  According to the latest survey by the National Association for 
Business Economics, the massive tax cuts have not made any difference 
in businesses' hiring plans. Rather, almost every week, we hear of 
corporations using their millions of dollars in handouts to buy back 
stock and pad the pockets of their investors. It is no wonder most 
Americans haven't seen their paychecks go up.
  In a few years, when the tax breaks expire--that is right, they are 
only temporary--the few families across the country who benefit will 
recognize the tax scam for what it really is: an empty bag of goods 
that added nearly $2.5 trillion to the national debt.
  My friends on the other side are even contemplating paying for part 
of their tax plan by retroactively eliminating funding for a number of 
programs, and the children's healthcare program is one of them.

[[Page H3846]]

  Let me say that again. In order to pay for the tax cuts for 
millionaires and large corporations, my Republican colleagues are 
suggesting cutting billions of dollars from healthcare programs for 
vulnerable children.
  How dare they.
  The closed process isn't just about what is being rammed through the 
House; it is about what is being blocked altogether.
  Americans across our Nation continue to be victims of gun violence, 
yet Congress has failed to pass even basic commonsense reforms like 
banning bump stocks or fixing our background check system.
  More than 26,000 children and teens have been killed in gun violence 
since 1999. This year alone, 500 teens and over 100 children have been 
killed or injured by guns. People are killed every single day, and this 
body has done nothing but prevent sensible reforms from even being 
considered.
  Another example is DACA. Eighty-three percent of Americans say they 
favor continuing the DACA program, as do a majority of the Members of 
this House, and that includes Republicans and Democrats; yet the 
majority refuses to bring up the Dream Act for a vote.
  Just put it down here for a vote; that is all. The 26 measures for 
guns that are reasonable, put it down here for a vote. If it doesn't 
pass, then at least we can say to the American people that we tried to 
do something about gun violence and we tried to do something about the 
Dream Act.
  Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility to the American people to 
consider legislation in a transparent and serious manner, and the 
legislation that we are considering today is exactly that kind of 
situation, something that doesn't happen nearly enough. I commend my 
colleagues for their bipartisan work on H.R. 3053, but it is absurd 
that bipartisan work is such a rarity, and that is worthy of comment.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for joining me in 
support of this important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, getting back to my State of Washington and the legacy of 
the Federal Government's work at Hanford, like I said, they left behind 
56 million gallons of radioactive and chemical waste that is currently 
being stored in 177 underground tanks in temporary storage.
  I had the fortune of being able to join a bipartisan congressional 
tour of Yucca, of the Yucca Mountain site, to see firsthand what we 
were talking about. Under the law, Yucca is the Nation's permanent 
nuclear repository.
  What I saw deep beneath the mountain in a remote desert that is 
between, I think, 90 and 100 miles north of Las Vegas--it has been 
referred to as the most studied site on Earth. But imagine this: being 
inside a 5-mile-long tunnel with 1,000 feet of rock above your head and 
1,000 feet of rock below your feet. That is what we are talking about.
  The Federal Government has spent $15 billion over decades preparing 
the site as the Nation's sole permanent nuclear repository. Yucca has 
been deemed safe by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the NRC. A 
recent safety evaluation found that the site could safely isolate spent 
nuclear fuel for 1 million years.
  Mr. Speaker, the prospect is that Yucca could stand in two different 
ways: it could be a monument to billions of dollars in government waste 
instead of being a monument to a solution that we promised every 
American in this country.
  I hope it is the latter, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, few people in this body understand the dynamics of Yucca 
Mountain as do the Members from the State of Nevada. One of my good 
friends is on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and on 
the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I have had the pleasure of being on 
the Rules Committee and hearing her make presentations with reference 
to this matter. She speaks very clearly.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. 
Titus).
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those kind words 
and for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I represent Las Vegas, which is the heart of southern 
Nevada. We have over 2 million people, and we welcome 40 million people 
from around the world every year. Let me give you a different 
perspective.
  I have been fighting Yucca Mountain since the 1980s. I do know these 
issues. I appreciate some of the points that have been made, but some 
of them are just incorrect. H.R. 3053 is a flawed piece of legislation, 
and it just doubles down on bad policy and bad politics.
  I testified in front of the Energy and Commerce Committee on this 
bill when it was first introduced last year and noted many of the flaws 
in the legislation, flaws that remain in the bill.
  I also presented a map that showed that, if this waste is taken to 
Nevada, it will go through over 300 of our Members' districts: past 
their schools, past their churches, past their businesses, in their 
backyards. So I want them to keep that in mind as they focus on Nevada.
  Other flaws with the bill: First, the bill would bust the cap for the 
amount of highly radioactive nuclear waste that would be dumped in 
Nevada. The bill arbitrarily increases the amount by 37 percent, 37 
percent over what was authorized in 1987. But what is more, not one of 
the environmental impact studies, the five-volume safety evaluation 
report, or any scientific document that relates to Yucca Mountain has 
studied the impact of increasing that original 70,000-metric-ton cap. 
So this would not only increase it, they haven't even studied what the 
impact of the increase would be.
  The bill also deems approved changes in the EPA's radiation 
protection standards for Yucca Mountain prior to the NRC's final 
licensing document. This leads one to conclude that, no matter what 
challenge they face, they will just figure out a way to get around it 
regardless of what the science says.
  Proponents of this legislation also say that, well, you will get 
generous host benefits if you take this facility. Well, that is just 
another falsehood. The provisions in the bill that were changed after 
it passed the committee in order to bring down the cost of the bill and 
address the massive scoring issues make our getting those benefits much 
less likely.
  These benefits have to be approved by future Congresses appropriating 
hundreds of millions of dollars. You don't really think they are going 
to do that, do you? They shut down the government twice just this year 
alone over disagreements on spending.
  If this legislation were about good policy or addressing the issue or 
getting the technicalities correct, I would be standing here supporting 
it, but I just cannot do that the way it is written.
  Mr. Speaker, the Congress first passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, 
as you heard, in 1982. It was amended in 1987 just to look at Nevada, 
not any of the other sites. We call that the ``Screw Nevada'' bill.
  Well, we call it that because you didn't have Nevada wanting it to 
come there. You didn't have the science to put it there. You just 
screwed Nevada and stuck it there.

                              {time}  1245

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS. I yield the gentlewoman from Nevada an additional 1 
minute.
  Ms. TITUS. Well, this is just more of the same. It is politics, pure 
and simple. It is three decades later. We have heard we spent $15 
billion. All you got is a hole in the ground. This is ``Screw Nevada 
2.0.''
  I am going to offer an amendment that allows for consent-based 
decisionmaking, which was the Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendation, 
and I hope that we can go in that direction. You allow consent-based 
for interim storage, why not for permanent storage? That would be the 
way to solve this problem. That would be the way to move us forward. We 
wouldn't waste billions more and decades more in terms of time.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the bill.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me quote the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee,

[[Page H3847]]

the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who said that:

       Overall, this legislation is a balanced step in the right 
     direction that will benefit ratepayers, taxpayers, and those 
     living near nuclear facilities housing nuclear waste.

  So I am happy to have his support for this legislation as well.
  And just a couple of points from the gentlewoman from Nevada, whom I 
deeply respect and take her perspective on this with a great deal of 
gravity.
  The transportation issue has been brought up several times. Nuclear 
waste is transported in this country already, and I have just got to 
tell you, the vessels, the containers that I have witnessed that this 
waste is being temporarily stored in and used for transportation, 
literally, is missile-proof. I mean, it is in containers that are very 
solidly contained and in such a way that the safety factor is many 
times over to ensure that, in case of any incident, that there would be 
no contamination.
  As far as the language, it is true that the bill would allow the 
potential increase of storage capacity at Yucca Mountain. However, 
there is a strict process of approval that would have to be gone 
through in order to increase the amount of nuclear waste stored at 
Yucca Mountain, so it is not a given, passing this legislation. It 
would be something that would go through a very long, strict process.
  I just have to say that we would gladly have entertained any 
amendments to clarify or perfect language along those lines as far as 
the storage amounts in Yucca Mountain.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  When debating a bill as significant as this one, it is imperative 
that the people's House allow as much debate and as open a process as 
possible. Sadly, the Rules Committee did not even allow all Members 
from Nevada, whose State this bill will impact the most, to offer their 
amendments on the House floor.
  Once again, this majority picked winners and losers and limited 
debate to just a select few amendments. This is unfortunate but all too 
common an event during the 115th Congress.
  To block a Member from offering an amendment to a bill that would 
impact their district, in particular, is to block a Member from 
representing their constituents. I might add, there were five Members, 
Democratic and Republican, from the Nevada delegation who were present 
at the Rules Committee last night.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer 
an amendment to the rule to allow the people's House to debate and vote 
on Representative Rosen of Nevada's amendment, which was blocked by the 
Rules Committee.
  Her amendment, which is a thoughtful proposal, would delay licensing, 
planning, or construction of the nuclear repository at the Yucca 
Mountain site until the Director of OMB studies the economic viability 
and job-creating benefits of alternative uses of the Yucca Mountain 
site.
  It is bothersome to me that we have had most of the discussion here 
already without talking about reprocessing; and I asked last night how 
much research is being done, of the distinguished chairman of the 
committee, who, I believe, has done an incredibly good job in offering 
up bipartisanship.
  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.
  Mr. HASTINGS. As I said previously, the members of the Nevada 
delegation know more about this issue than all the rest of us combined. 
So to discuss our proposal, yet another clear voice that came to the 
Rules Committee last night and her amendment was not made in order.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Rosen), a 
member of the Armed Services Committee, and the Science, Space, and 
Technology Committee.
  Ms. ROSEN. Mr. Speaker, if today's vote on the previous question 
fails, we have the opportunity to vote on my amendment, the Jobs, Not 
Waste amendment, a proactive and innovative proposal to turn Yucca 
Mountain into something useful, a project that would create jobs 
without threatening the health and safety of Nevadans and other 
Americans across this country.
  My amendment would prohibit the Department of Energy from moving 
forward with its current plan to ship nuclear waste by truck and rail 
through 329 congressional districts to Yucca Mountain until the Federal 
Government considers a number of other job-creating alternatives, 
including defense activities, like a command facility for unmanned 
aircraft systems, scientific research, the development of a secure 
electronic data center, or renewable energy generation.

  One of the arguments I regularly hear from proponents of Yucca 
Mountain is that it will create jobs and that we have already invested 
billions in building a repository at this sight. Well, I am here to say 
that we can still create jobs without having to take on monumental 
health and safety risks that come with transporting over 100,000 metric 
tons of hazardous and lethal nuclear waste.
  Congress should have the opportunity to vote on my amendment because 
it would give Members a chance to find a smart, strategic solution that 
repurposes this dangerous and costly project. This amendment gives us 
an opportunity to convert Yucca Mountain into a facility that could 
still provide economic opportunity, drive innovation, and create new, 
good-paying jobs.
  Relaunching the failed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storing 
experiment will also cost the taxpayers an additional $80 billion to 
complete, minimum. Let me repeat that: $80 billion, minimum.
  Instead of spending billions more of hard-earned taxpayer dollars on 
the project that is destined to fail, that will inevitably put Nevada 
families and your families in your districts at risk, let us consider 
these forward-thinking opportunities.
  I strongly urge you to do what is smart and fiscally responsible, 
what is right for the health and safety of all of our constituents, by 
making my amendment in order. I therefore ask all Members to vote 
``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), who has been carrying the banner for the Yucca 
Mountain project for many Congresses.
  (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Rules Committee for 
bringing this bill to the floor tomorrow. I appreciate the due 
diligence they did on scrutinizing those amendments that could be 
additive to it and also the one from my colleague, Representative 
Titus, so we can really put aside this debate on a consensus-based 
issue because we need to help educate the American people. We need to 
help educate our colleagues.
  In the State of Nevada, 90 percent of all the land is owned by the 
Federal Government, and a big portion of that is at this location.
  When people say ``not in my backyard,'' we think they are talking 
about the Rayburn Building. Not in my backyard, in this debate, we are 
talking about Baltimore. But in between here and Baltimore, there is 
desert; and in the 60-mile radius is a fenced-in enclosure where we 
used to set off atomic weapons and groundbursts. So there is a place in 
this land that is called Yucca Flats, and some of us have seen that. 
Yucca Flats is where we did atomic testing.
  We need to make sure people understand this debate. Big area of land, 
Federal Government, really, the local consensus is us. It is the 
Federal Government. We are the landowners of this property.
  This is a tough decision. No one wants nuclear waste or defense 
waste. I am glad my colleague, Mr. Newhouse, is managing this bill, 
because I have been out to his location. In Hanford, we have a lot of 
defense waste there.
  So what are we trying to do? We will flesh this out more, obviously, 
tomorrow, but this issue is a multigeneration debate which we in this 
Chamber get a chance to move forward again after a long delay.

[[Page H3848]]

  This goes back to World War II. This goes back to the atomic age. 
This goes back to winning the Cold War. This goes back to our weapons 
programs. When that occurred, they said: Now we have got this 
technology; let's use it for civil electric generation.
  The government wanted to encourage that because we wanted to have 
nuclear scientists and we wanted to have energy generation, but we also 
wanted to have the experience and the expertise of nuclear scientists 
and engineers who could move back and forth from the private sector to 
the defense sector for our Nation's security, and, hence, we agreed.
  In 1982, we had to address the spent nuclear fuel at nuclear power 
sites and we had to address the defense waste that is predominantly in 
Congressman Newhouse's district, a lot of it in South Carolina. There 
is a little bit in New York. We have some left in Colorado. That is 
just the defense waste, not including the 39 States and 121 locations 
that have nuclear fuel--a national issue, a national concern, and we 
are moving forward to a national solution.
  In 1982, under the Reagan administration, they said: Well, how are we 
going to pay for this? So they decided to charge ratepayers who are 
using electricity that has been generated by nuclear power a fee, a 
fee-based system to help the industry find a location to store their 
spent fuel and for us to clean up the defense sites--pretty good 
proposal.
  Years later, they are trying to find the location. They do three 
analyses. Yucca Mountain was on the top three of these three. Then, as 
I will mention tomorrow, Senator Johnson and a guy named John Dingell 
said: Yucca Mountain, we need to move forward.
  So that was in 1987. Then we started generating the movement to get 
to a point where, under the law, the State of Nevada could say, ``We 
reject the proposal,'' which they did. The law then said the Federal 
Government could veto their objection, which we did.

                              {time}  1300

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, we had an administration that put a pause 
on that for about 8 years, and now we are ready to move forward again. 
We have got an administration that wants to fund the licensing process.
  I see my good friend from California (Ms. Matsui) is on the floor, 
and she has worked on interim; what do we do with the waste before we 
put it in the final repository?
  There are what I call dead plants--probably not the proper word--we 
have plants that are no longer generating electricity, but they have 
waste on site.
  Can't we consolidate those for the benefit of the Nation and get them 
away from some of our more pristine areas?
  The answer is ``yes.'' That is what we tried to with the bill. We are 
going to accept a couple amendments that have been brought forward by 
some Democrat colleagues on, I think, financing, or evaluation of the 
money and what do we do to the cities and how do we help them 
redevelop. And I will encourage my colleagues to support those when we 
have that debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I know it is not an easy process in the Rules Committee. 
This is a step to get it to the floor. I appreciate the kindness that 
was shown to me yesterday, and I look forward to joining with you all 
tomorrow.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui), my good friend, who serves on the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, and is a former member of the Rules Committee, so 
she understands our process extremely well and has done extraordinary 
work on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Hastings for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste 
Policy Amendments Act.
  We worked in a bipartisan manner in the Energy and Commerce Committee 
to ensure there is language in this bill that provides a responsible 
path forward for consolidated interim storage.
  When this bill was first presented in committee, the licensing of an 
interim storage facility was linked to a final decision on Yucca 
Mountain.
  As someone who is critical of Yucca Mountain and its chances of ever 
being completed, I found that to be unacceptable. It meant that our 
Nation's nuclear waste could continue to be stranded at decommissioned 
plants in California and across the country. That is not sustainable.
  However, through bipartisan negotiations, we were able to 
successfully agree on language that creates a separate path to interim 
storage, decoupling it from a permanent repository.
  That is the primary reason why I am supporting the bill today.
  This is an issue that directly impacts my constituents and many 
others across the country. My local utility, the Sacramento Municipal 
Utility District or, as we call it, SMUD, currently maintains the 
decommissioned Rancho Seco nuclear power plant. SMUD has reiterated how 
important it is for the redevelopment of the site, that we have a plan 
for consolidating spent fuel at a safe, licensed facility.
  Moving spent fuel will enable SMUD to expand their adjacent solar 
development or environmental mitigation area.
  Consolidated interim storage is currently the most viable solution to 
our Nation's spent fuel challenge. And there are private applicants 
that want to take this fuel. Today's bill strengthens the regulatory 
pathway that allows them to do so.
  This bill also funds transportation safety, ensuring that we build on 
our country's decades-long history of safely moving spent fuel.
  While I don't believe every provision of H.R. 3053 is ideal, it is a 
balanced step in the right direction, and that is why I will vote 
``yes'' for this legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by again commending the committees 
involved in presenting this legislation, and for doing so in a 
bipartisan manner.
  While the underlying bill we are debating today is not perfect, it 
is, nonetheless, an example of what can be accomplished through 
bipartisan work.
  In bringing up this bill, the Republican leadership has, perhaps, 
tipped its hand. It has demonstrated that it is capable of working with 
the minority and allowing for mature debate and compromise worthy of 
this institution. I hope this trend continues. I suspect that it will 
not.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and the 
rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say, it is a pleasure to manage a rule with my 
friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), and my hands are wide open, not 
tipped whatsoever.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people have spent over $15 billion in 
research and development of the Yucca Mountain project. It would be 
utterly foolish, in my estimation, to literally flush this time, 
energy, and capital down the drain, particularly as the Department of 
Energy has deemed that the site has met all the requirements to move 
forward with the licensing process.
  The rule we have debated here today provides for consideration of 
very, very important legislation, H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy 
Amendments Act of 2018, which would jump-start this vital effort to 
move the Yucca Mountain plan forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to speak in favor of this rule, and I 
urge all of my colleagues to support House Resolution 879 and the 
underlying legislation to provide relief and a long-term plan for 
communities like those in my district and those in Mr. Hastings' State 
of Florida, and the rest of our districts around the Nation.
  The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as 
follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 879 Offered by Mr. Hastings

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment specified in section 3 shall be in 
     order as though printed as the last amendment in the report 
     of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution if 
     offered by Representative

[[Page H3849]]

     Rosen of Nevada or a designee. That amendment shall be 
     debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent.
       Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as 
     follows:

     SEC. 206. STUDYING THE ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF ALTERNATIVE USES 
                   OF YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy may not take any 
     action relating to the licensing, planning, development, or 
     construction of a nuclear waste repository at 6 the Yucca 
     Mountain site until--
       (1) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
     submits to Congress, and makes available to the public, a 
     study on the economic viability and job-creating benefits of 
     alternative uses of the Yucca Mountain site as outlined in 
     GAO Report 11-847, published on September 16, 2011, 
     including--
       (A) defense activities, such as a command facility for 
     unmanned aircraft systems;
       (B) a secure electronic data center;
       (C) the development of renewable energy sources; and
       (D) scientific research; and
       (2) Congress holds a hearing on the alternative uses under 
     subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (1).
       (b) Definition. In this section, the term ``Yucca Mountain 
     site'' has the meaning given such term in section 2 of the 
     Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101).
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Trott). 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 223, 
nays 189, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 173]

                               YEAS--223

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     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)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     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
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     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)

                               NAYS--189

     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
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     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
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     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
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     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)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema

[[Page H3850]]


     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--16

     Castor (FL)
     Gutierrez
     Harris
     Hoyer
     Jenkins (WV)
     Jones
     Kuster (NH)
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Messer
     Pittenger
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Royce (CA)
     Smith (TX)
     Zeldin

                              {time}  1333

  Mr. NADLER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  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 224, 
noes 184, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 174]

                               AYES--224

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     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)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     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
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamb
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schneider
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     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
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--184

     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
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     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
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     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
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     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

                               PRESENT--1

       
     Amodei
       

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Castor (FL)
     Cohen
     Davidson
     Doggett
     Duffy
     Gutierrez
     Hoyer
     Huizenga
     Jenkins (WV)
     Jones
     Kuster (NH)
     Labrador
     Messer
     Pittenger
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Royce (CA)
     Smith (NE)
     Woodall

                              {time}  1341

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 174.

                          ____________________