[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17587-17595]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1900, NATURAL GAS PIPELINE 
                         PERMITTING REFORM ACT

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 420 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

[[Page 17588]]



                              H. Res. 420

       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. 1900) to provide for the timely consideration 
     of all licenses, permits, and approvals required under 
     Federal law with respect to the siting, construction, 
     expansion, or operation of any natural gas pipeline projects. 
     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 113-25. 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.
       Sec. 2.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     November 22, 2013, through November 29, 2013--
       (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 3.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), 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. BURGESS. 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 Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 420 provides for the 
consideration of a critical piece of legislation that was passed by the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce designed to address the costly and 
unnecessary delays which many businesses experience when trying to get 
a final determination to be made by the Federal Government in relation 
to a pending pipeline.
  A member of the committee, Mr. Pompeo from Kansas, the bill's author, 
has drafted a meaningful piece of legislation, taking into account the 
various competing interests involved in the permitting process and has 
found a fair and just balance for ensuring that our critical 
infrastructure moves forward.
  The rule before us today provides for 1 hour of general debate on the 
bill. Five of the six amendments submitted to the Rules Committee were 
made in order, all Democratic amendments. The sixth was neither germane 
nor did it meet the CutGo rules of the House. Finally, the minority is 
afforded the customary motion to recommit on the bill, allowing for yet 
another opportunity to amend the legislation.
  H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act, is the 
product of hours of work with stakeholders that Mr. Pompeo has put in 
to improve the legislation. The bill streamlines our Nation's pipeline 
permitting processes in an effort to allow for greater capacity and 
promote safe infrastructure. Specifically, the bill directs the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission to approve or deny a permit application 
for a new natural gas pipeline within 12 months.
  Natural gas is one of the clearest examples of how this country can 
move itself toward a more sustainable energy-independent future while 
at the same time allowing and encouraging our economy to grow. My own 
district in north Texas sits 8,000 feet above the Barnett shale, a 
natural gas formation that industry has been using to produce gas for 
decades. Indeed, due to the technological advances and strong market, 
the area that I represent felt few of the effects of the recession 
until at least a year after the recession was initiated due to the 
booming economy that resulted from the development of the resources 
under our feet.
  Obviously, with increased production and demand, as we have seen with 
the natural gas industry, comes an increased need for infrastructure. I 
welcome any legislation which would streamline the permitting process 
and allow companies to spend less time with Washington bureaucrats and 
more time creating jobs, producing products that consumers want and are 
eager to buy.

                              {time}  1245

  Indeed, with the increase in supply that hydraulic fracturing has 
created with natural gas, the pace at which the Federal Government has 
approved increased infrastructure, namely pipelines, to transport this 
commodity has not kept up.
  Pipelines provide the safest, fastest, and cleanest mode of 
transportation for natural gas, as we in the Energy and Commerce 
Committee have heard from witnesses again and again. Making certain 
that our country has the number of pipelines necessary for transporting 
the gas we need to heat our homes and run our cars is a critical step 
toward energy independence.
  Moreover, Members of this body who annually support more robust 
funding for programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program, commonly referred to as LIHEAP, should be joining with 
Republicans today in supporting an increase in pipeline infrastructure 
in our country, as the natural gas being produced in Western States 
could more efficiently be transported to the Northeastern States, 
reducing home heating costs and lessening the need for government 
assistance for many families.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is an important bill. It will create 
opportunity to put thousands of workers to work, creating the 
infrastructure that this country has needed for some time due to the 
energy boom in natural gas. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' 
on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I also rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, it appears that this Republican-controlled House of 
Representatives is incapable of doing anything that matters in people's 
lives. When the history is written on the 113th Congress, especially as 
it pertains to the House of Representatives, they have accomplished 
nothing. They have made a lot of noise. They shut the government down. 
They whine about the health care bill every chance they get, but they 
have accomplished absolutely nothing.
  And it is frustrating because our country is facing great challenges. 
Our

[[Page 17589]]

economic growth is slower than it should be, thanks to the Republican 
shutdown of government, and their willingness to play politics with the 
debt ceiling has had a negative impact on our economy. Job growth is 
too slow, and we should be working together to invest in education and 
in job training and in infrastructure projects to help put people back 
to work. We ought to have a long-term highway bill. I think every 
Governor in the country, Republican and Democrat, would agree with me 
on that statement. Yet this House of Representatives just seems 
incapable of accomplishing anything to help rebuild our infrastructure.
  The sequester that my Republican friends embraced has taken a 
terrible toll on our science and research programs. Talk to the people 
at NIH. Potentially lifesaving research into diseases like cancer and 
Parkinson's disease have been crippled, yet there is no urgency over on 
the side of my friends on the other side of the aisle to try to do 
anything about it. They just sit there and twiddle their thumbs and 
life goes on; meanwhile, we are losing our competitive edge in medical 
research and in science.
  The Senate has passed a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration bill. 
The Republican leadership claims that we simply don't have the time to 
take it up. That is nonsense. We had time to take up this horrible bill 
that my colleague from Iowa (Mr. King) authored that would allow for 
the mass deportation of young, undocumented immigrants, the so-called 
DREAMers who were brought here as children by their parents. They have 
time to demagogue these issues, but to actually fix our broken 
immigration system, they claim we don't have any time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record today's Washington Post 
editorial, ``John Boehner Must Act on Immigration Now.''
  And just so my colleagues understand this, when my friends on the 
other side of the aisle say they don't have time, the Republicans will 
take 4 out of 5 days off for the rest of the year. That is how hard 
they are working on behalf of the American people. Four out of 5 days 
remaining from now until the end of the year they are going to take 
off. That is not doing your job, Mr. Speaker. That is not doing your 
job.
  Instead of dealing with these important issues, we have this bill 
before us now that has come to the floor, H.R. 1900. The bill before is 
rather curious. Rather than solving a problem that actually exists, it 
is a solution in search of a problem, and it is just another partisan 
messaging bill that is going nowhere in the Senate. The White House has 
already said they would veto it.
  H.R. 1900 would require FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, to approve or deny an application for a natural gas 
pipeline within 12 months of its filing date. FERC already decides 92 
percent of permit applications within 12 months, and the GAO has 
concluded that its pipeline permitting process is predictable and 
consistent and gets pipelines built. The small percentage of 
applications that have taken more than a year involve complex proposals 
that deserve a more thoughtful review.
  Instead of speeding up the permitting process, this bill will lead to 
unnecessary permit denials and increased litigation that will 
ultimately slow the process down. If FERC cannot properly review 
permits within the rigid 12-month deadline, they may be forced to deny 
applications that would otherwise end up being approved.
  For me, the most troubling part of H.R. 1900 is that it may result in 
truncated or inadequate environmental analysis, which threatens the 
health and safety of communities these potentially hazardous pipelines 
run through. Just last week, a Chevron pipeline exploded in Milford, 
Texas, forcing the entire town to evacuate. Mr. Speaker, it isn't too 
much to ask the oil and gas industry to go through a process to make 
sure that these pipelines are safe.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and on the 
underlying bill, and I urge my Republican colleagues to get back to 
work on solving real problems on behalf of the American people.
  Enough of the press releases, enough of this polarizing rhetoric and 
these meaningless debates that we seem to be consumed with here in the 
House of Representatives. People want us to work on their behalf, to do 
things that will improve their lives, that will strengthen our country; 
and instead, my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be 
cheering for our country to fail all the time and bringing this kind of 
stuff to the floor, which is going nowhere and is meaningless.
  At this point, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                  [The Washington Post, Nov. 19, 2013]

                John Boehner Must Act on Immigration Now

                          (By Editorial Board)

       Poor John Boehner. The beleaguered House speaker can't even 
     eat breakfast in peace. The other day, a pair of teenage 
     girls, activists for immigration reform, accosted him at 
     Pete's Diner, his early-morning hangout, to ask how he'd like 
     to be deported.
       ``How would you feel if you had to tell your kids at the 
     age of 10 that you were never coming home?'' 13-year-old 
     Carmen Lima, of California, asked Mr. Boehner. ``That 
     wouldn't be good,'' allowed the Speaker.
       He got that right. The rest of his remarks on immigration 
     that day, not so much. Mr. Boehner, who pledged to press 
     ahead with immigration reform a year ago following Mitt 
     Romney's dismal performance with Latino voters, now says the 
     House will not negotiate with Democrats on the basis of the 
     sweeping reform bill passed by the Senate in June with 
     bipartisan support. Translation: Don't hold your breath for 
     immigration reform this year, and don't get your hopes high 
     for next year, either.
       Mr. Boehner says he still wants to ``deal with'' 
     immigration, but ``in a commonsense, step-by-step way.''
       The trouble is, no one knows what those steps would be. The 
     only immigration bill on which Mr. Boehner has permitted a 
     vote by the full House would allow for the mass deportation 
     of young, undocumented immigrants brought to this country 
     illegally as children by their parents--the so-called 
     Dreamers.
       Deporting hundreds of thousands of youngsters who grew up 
     and went to school in the United States does not seem an 
     especially promising way to resolve the broader issue of the 
     nation's broken immigration system. Neither does heaving 
     billions of dollars more at border security without tackling 
     the entire problem. Some partial reforms, such as opening the 
     visa spigot for high-tech engineers, scientists and 
     mathematicians, may make sense, but they don't get at the 
     fundamental problem.
       As it happens, border security and high-tech visas are 
     addressed in the Senate bill, along with more fundamental 
     reform; that's why it's 1,300 pages long, a fact that Mr. 
     Boehner cited to dismiss its viability as the basis for 
     negotiations. In the wake of Obamacare's rollout troubles, 
     large-scale reforms are in poor repute, we understand. But 
     there are 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United 
     States. The country needs to deal with them in some way. When 
     it does so, it needs to set up a sensible system for future 
     immigration so we don't wind up in the same fix 10 or 20 
     years from now. That requires legislation of some complexity, 
     it's true, but members of Congress are elected to solve 
     complex problems.
       President Obama said Tuesday that he is open to dealing 
     with immigration in a piecemeal fashion. But the House can't 
     dictate that only border security and deportation are on the 
     table. Mr. Boehner should let House Republicans vote on the 
     parts of immigration reform they consider priorities and take 
     that ``sensible step-by-step'' approach into negotiations 
     with the Senate. It is unserious, and unconstructive, to tell 
     the Senate what it can and cannot bring to the table in 
     negotiations with the House.

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my privilege to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.
  I rise today in opposition to the rule and to H.R. 1900.
  As many of my colleagues are aware, natural gas is extremely 
important to the State of Texas. It seems like every day more and more 
natural gas deposits are being found. More importantly, with the 
commercialization of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, we 
are now able to develop these resources effectively and economically, 
but that is only half the story. Once we have found these resources, we 
need a way to move them to market in a safe and environmentally 
responsible way.
  In 1956, the United States decided it was in our best interest to 
build a network of highways. These highways, totaling approximately 
47,000 miles,

[[Page 17590]]

moved goods to market and dramatically expanded commerce. It may 
surprise some, but the interstate and intrastate pipeline system is 
approximately seven times larger than the highway system in the United 
States.
  The natural gas pipeline system in this country is critical and 
extensive infrastructure. The permitting and review process that is 
required to site and construct pipelines in this country has ensured an 
environmental safety record that is second to none. That doesn't mean 
there aren't still going to be problems, when you consider the amount 
of miles we have.
  Unfortunately, I can't support this particular bill. I support an 
expedited review process and expansion of the pipeline system. Our 
intrastate natural gas pipeline system is not broken. I cannot support 
a bill that would issue a license or permit or approval after merely an 
expired time line. In testimony in our committee, the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, the FERC, has an average of about a year 
turnaround.
  I want to continue to support the construction of pipelines, and my 
ardent support is firmly backed by a safety record that is unmatched. I 
will continue to support an industry that has been an engine of our 
economic growth for the last decade.
  This bill is a solution in search of a problem. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues in the future on another approach that will 
benefit all stakeholders, our environment, and our economy.
  I encourage my colleagues to oppose the rule and the bill.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my privilege to yield 
5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished 
whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I see four people in the gallery. I see three 
Members on the floor. The galleries are empty, the floor is empty 
because we are not doing anything, and it is not because we don't have 
a lot of things to do.
  We have 6--7 if you count tomorrow where we will leave by 12:00--6 
full days left in the session in 2013, and yet we fiddle here while the 
country sees itself burning on bills that are going nowhere, that have 
no priority and deal with a subject, energy, which, happily, is one of 
the most successful places we are at in America today, where we are 
fast becoming the energy-independent, low-cost energy situs of the 
world.
  We have no budget conference coming to this floor scheduled in the 6 
full days that we have left and the 2 other days that may be counted in 
which we come in at 6:30 and meet for probably a half an hour or 45 
minutes and vote on suspension bills. Yet we have spent this entire 
week--and we left, of course, hardworking day yesterday, we left doing 
work at 2:30 in the afternoon. No budget conference, no fiscal policy, 
no solution to the crisis that confronted us when we shut down 
government.
  I urged that we have a budget conference report by November 22--that 
is tomorrow--so that we didn't, as our practice has been in recent 
months and years, confront real issues only when crisis gives us no 
other alternative.
  No immigration reform has been brought to the floor, although it 
passed the Senate with 68 votes, comprehensive immigration reform, 
which will address a problem that every Member of this House says is an 
immigration system that is broken. The majority leader said that the 
other day, and I asked him about the four bills that our Republican 
friends, Mr. Speaker, have reported out of committee but they languish 
somewhere in the netherworld, not brought to the floor for 
consideration by this House.
  And yet we have time to consider bills that will have no impact, 
which the President says he will veto, and are not bipartisan bills, 
were reported out of the committee in a partisan fashion, as so much of 
the legislation that we consider on this House floor is, partisan, 
confrontational, no-consensus pieces of legislation.
  Yet a comprehensive immigration reform bill that had 68 votes, over 
two-thirds of the United States Senate, 14 Republicans voted for that 
bill, yet the Speaker says he is not for it and won't bring it to the 
floor. That is the same Speaker that says let the House work its will. 
The House cannot work its will if the legislation is not brought to the 
floor by the House, which can only be done by the Republican majority, 
Mr. Speaker, as you know. So they keep that bill from being considered, 
although CBO says it will help the economy, grow jobs, and fix a broken 
system.

                              {time}  1300

  There are 6 full days left to go on the schedule in 2013. And yet the 
farm bill, which was reported out of the committee 2 years ago in a 
bipartisan fashion in the last Congress but was never brought to this 
floor, while we twiddled our thumbs while Rome burned--the farm bill 
lies languishing in conference committee because a bipartisan bill, 
passed by the United States Senate, was not considered in this House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. But a partisan bill with almost no Democratic votes, and 
the second piece of that farm bill, the nutritional part, receiving not 
a single Democratic vote, lies languishing in the conference committee 
because it was passed in an extraordinarily partisan fashion, where the 
gentleman from Oklahoma's (Mr. Lucas) bill, reported out in a 
bipartisan fashion. The American public, Mr. Speaker, says, Let's act 
bipartisanly. We did. With Democratic and Republican votes, the farm 
bill came out of the Agriculture Committee and was turned into a 
partisan bill on this floor by my Republican colleagues. So it 
languishes with 6 days left, with the farm bill expiring on December 
31, no action, no progress.
  We need to pay our doctors a proper compensation for the services 
they give. I am sure the gentleman from the Rules Committee, who, 
himself, is a medical doctor, understands this necessity. We need to 
fix the sustainable growth, but it languishes somewhere out in the 
netherworld while we have 6 days left. Unfixed, unscheduled. I have 
asked the majority leader numerous times: Is that going to be brought 
to the floor? It has not been brought to the floor.
  Discrimination in the workplace, passed by the Senate in a bipartisan 
fashion, ENDA, is not going to be brought to this floor. The Speaker 
says he is opposed to it, so the House will not be able to work its 
will again on a piece of legislation that, in my opinion, would have a 
majority of the votes on this floor. There is no doubt in my mind, and 
I am the whip. I count votes, Mr. Speaker, as you know. It would have 
the majority of votes on this floor, but the Speaker and the majority 
leader will not bring it to this floor.
  Unemployment insurance for 1.2 million people ends on December 31, 
and we have 6 days of full work left and two partial days when we come 
in at 6:30. Yet unemployment insurance has not been brought to this 
floor to be extended for those 1.1 million people, with still 7.2 or 
7.3 percent unemployment. Unemployment insurance is a critically 
important issue. It is somewhere out there, but it is not on this 
floor. This, while we have considered legislation this entire week that 
the majority knows will not pass the United States Senate and, even if 
it did pass, would not be signed by the President of the United States.
  But they send a message, perhaps, to their base: politics. With the 
budget conference, immigration reform, the farm bill, the sustainable 
growth rate, doc reimbursement for Medicare patients, discrimination in 
the workplace, unemployment insurance, and, yes, I would add to that 
tax extenders--none of it on this floor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. No one ought to ask themselves why the American people 
hold this institution in such low regard. None of us who have served in

[[Page 17591]]

this institution for any period of time are proud of what we are doing 
in this Congress. We lament the unwillingness of the leadership of this 
House to have us do the work that the American public knows we must be 
doing.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the previous question. 
This is not just an ordinary previous question. What this previous 
question says is, We will not adjourn, American people. We will not 
adjourn on December 13, as is projected by the majority to be the date 
on which we adjourn. We will not adjourn until such time as we have 
done the important work that the American people expect of us, the 
responsible work that the American people expect of us, the work that 
we ought to expect of ourselves until we consider this bill.
  I would hope that we would defeat the previous question, and if we 
defeat the previous question, then we will bring to this floor a 
resolution which will say, We shall not adjourn until we have done a 
budget conference that precludes fiscal crisis, shutting down 
government, a refusal to pay America's debts; that we pass an 
immigration reform bill that fixes what everybody knows is a broken 
system; until we bring a farm bill to the floor which will preclude 
farmers and consumers and those who need nutritional help from being 
put at risk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a letter. This is not a 
letter from Democrats. This is a letter from 13 Republican leaders, 
chairs of the subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee, who say to 
the budget conference committee: Bring a solution to the floor before 
the Thanksgiving break and no later than December 2. Yet, ladies and 
gentlemen of this House, Mr. Speaker--and yes, Mr. Speaker, all of us 
speak to the American people, who ought to be asking us, Why? Why? Why 
do we waste time when so much important work remains to be done?
  Defeat the previous question. Allow us to offer a resolution which 
will say to the American people, We will continue to work until we get 
your work done.

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                  Committee on Appropriations,

                                Washington, DC, November 18, 2013.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Chairman, Budget Committee,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chris Van Hollen,
     Ranking Member, Budget Committee,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Patty Murray,
     Chairwoman, Budget Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     Ranking Member, Budget Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Ryan, Chairwoman Murray, Ranking Member 
     Sessions, and Ranking Member Van Hollen: We call on the 
     Budget conference to reach an agreement on the FY 2014 and 
     2015 spending caps as soon as possible to allow the 
     appropriations process to move forward to completion by the 
     January 15 expiration of the current short-term Continuing 
     Resolution. We urge you to redouble your efforts toward that 
     end and report common, topline levels for both the House and 
     Senate before the Thanksgiving recess, or by December 2 at 
     the latest.
       If a timely agreement is not reached, the likely 
     alternatives could have extremely damaging repercussions. 
     First, the failure to reach a budget deal to allow 
     Appropriations to assemble funding for FY 2014 will reopen 
     the specter of another government shutdown. Second, it will 
     reopen the probability of governance by continuing 
     resolution, based on prior year outdated spending needs and 
     priorities, dismissing in one fell swoop all of the work done 
     by the Congress to enact appropriations bills for FY 2014 
     that reflect the will of Congress and the people we 
     represent. Third, the current sequester and the upcoming 
     ``Second Sequester'' in January would result in more 
     indiscriminate across the board reductions that could have 
     negative consequences on critically important federal 
     programs, especially our national defense.
       In addition, failure to agree on a common spending cap for 
     FY 2015 will guarantee another year of confusion.
       The American people deserve a detailed budget blueprint 
     that makes rational and intelligent choices on funding by 
     their elected representatives, not by a meat ax. We urge you 
     to come together and decide on a common discretionary 
     spending topline for both FY 2014 and FY 2015 as quickly as 
     possible to empower our Committee, and the Congress as a 
     whole, to make the responsible spending decisions that we 
     have been elected to make.
           Sincerely,
         Harold Rogers, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations; 
           Jack Kingston, Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Health 
           and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies; 
           Tom Latham, Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, 
           and Housing and Urban Development, and Related 
           Agencies; Kay Granger, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on 
           State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies; John 
           Abney Culberson, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military 
           Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies; 
           John R. Carter, Chairman, Subcommittee on Homeland 
           Security; Tom Cole, Chairman, Subcommittee on 
           Legislative Branch; Frank R. Wolf, Chairman, 
           Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice Science, and Related 
           Agencies; Rodney Frelinghuysen, Chairman, Subcommittee 
           on Defense; Robert B. Aderholt, Chairman, Subcommittee 
           on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
           Administration, and Related Agencies; Michael K. 
           Simpson, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water 
           Development, and Related Agencies; Ander Crenshaw, 
           Chairman, Subcommittee on Financial Services and 
           General Government; Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee 
           on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.

  Mr. BURGESS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks of our 
distinguished whip. It is frustrating to serve in the people's House 
and watch as this leadership purposely tries to avoid doing the 
people's business. It is frustrating when you go home and you talk to 
farmers, and they want to know where the farm bill is. It is 
frustrating when you talk to people about immigration, and they look at 
what happened in the United States Senate, where it passed 
overwhelmingly with bipartisan support, and we can't even get anything 
scheduled here. We can't even get anything scheduled here.
  It is frustrating when people are still reeling over the fact that 
the Republicans shut the government down, and they want to make sure we 
don't repeat it. Yet we have no budget resolution, no budget conference 
that has been put together to make sure that we are on a road where we 
don't have any more of these Ted Cruz-led shutdowns around here. So it 
is very frustrating.
  I think the gentleman from Maryland said it very clearly--that the 
American people are frustrated. It is not just Democrats. It is 
Democrats and Republicans that are frustrated.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. BURGESS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas for a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. BURGESS. Is it in order to refer to Members of the other body by 
name?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not provide an advisory 
opinion.
  Mr. McGOVERN. So we don't want another Ted Cruz-led shutdown here in 
the House of Representatives. I think the American people are fed up 
with that.
  Then, as the distinguished minority whip pointed out, I mean, we are 
not even in session more than 6 full days from now until the end of the 
year, which is absolutely unconscionable.
  You say to yourself, Well, maybe the Republicans are planning to do 
something in the future; maybe they have an agenda for the future. Then 
we read in Politico that last Thursday, a group of House Republicans 
filed into Majority Leader Eric Cantor's Capitol office

[[Page 17592]]

suite and received a blank piece of paper labeled, ``Agenda 2014.'' 
This is their agenda for 2014. A Republican political aide put it more 
bluntly by saying, ``What we have done so far this year clearly hasn't 
worked.''
  This is their agenda for next year. It might as well be the agenda 
for the rest of this year. It is nothing, nothing that is improving the 
quality of life for the people that we represent. Again, it fuels a 
cynicism all across the country that the majority party here doesn't 
seem to care about what happens to regular people, and that is very, 
very disconcerting.
  I guess they could go back and say that their big accomplishment was 
that they complained about the Affordable Care Act. Over 40-something 
times, they brought bills to the floor to try to repeal it, never once 
offering an alternative to improve it, never once giving an alternative 
idea that would help address the fact that tens of millions of our 
citizens don't have health insurance. Millions do have health 
insurance, but it is really not health insurance because when they get 
sick, they realize they have been paying for a policy that provides 
them nothing. There is no alternative agenda to try to address those 
issues; it is just that they are against it. I guess it is easy to say 
``no,'' but the bottom line is, I think the American people are looking 
for us to say ``yes'' to some things.
  So, Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up House Resolution 424, Ranking Member 
Slaughter's resolution prohibiting an adjournment of the House until we 
adopt a budget conference report.
  What that means is that we should not adjourn until we do our job. 
That shouldn't be a radical idea. I would like to think there is 
bipartisan consensus that we ought to do our job, and that is what this 
would require.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment into 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 Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and on the underlying bills which, 
to be honest with you, are a waste of our time. They are going nowhere 
in the Senate, and the President has already issued a veto threat on 
them.
  With one last urging of my Republican colleagues to stay here and do 
your work, Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  You know, Mr. Speaker, it was a little over a year ago that the 
American people went to the polls, and in their wisdom, they elected a 
divided government. They knew what divided government looked like. They 
had seen it for the 2 years prior.
  The President came to town in 2009 and promised a lot of sweeping 
changes, and he delivered on those sweeping changes during the first 2 
years of his administration. He had a health care bill passed. The 
health care bill passed without a single Republican vote. You talk 
about a partisan vote--the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
was a partisan vote. Unfortunately, we are seeing now, as we have 
convulsed the country with these changes that are occurring within the 
insurance system, we are seeing the changes that are going to occur to 
our providers, our doctors, our hospitals, our nurses in the months 
ahead. This is a serious situation, and it requires serious action to 
be taken.
  I won't apologize for any action that has been taken by the majority 
in this House to try to rein in the excesses of the administration and 
the previous Democrat-controlled Congress when they took over one-sixth 
of the Nation's economy in a partisan fashion without a single 
Republican vote.
  The sequester was passed in August of 2011. It was passed at the 
request of the President. The gentleman has talked about shutdowns and 
defaults of the government. Do you remember that the sequester was a 
compromise proposed by the President and the Office of Management and 
Budget at the White House in order to prevent defaulting on our debt? 
It was a very difficult vote for many of us in this House.
  What has the sequester delivered? The sequester delivered what no one 
had been able to deliver in the 4 years previously, and that is a 
Federal budget deficit that is below $1 trillion. It doesn't sound like 
a big ask that the American people had: We want you to stop spending so 
much money. The sequester delivered on that promise.
  I find it strange now for the gentleman from Massachusetts to impugn 
the integrity of people who voted in favor of that sequester when the 
President and the minority leader of the House of Representatives now 
want to take credit for the fact that the deficit was cut in half over 
the last 4 years.

                              {time}  1315

  The only reason it was cut in half was because they raised it to 
unsustainable levels, and now the sequester has reined that back in. It 
is quite likely that the deficit at the end of fiscal year 2014 will in 
fact be lower if we don't do something to damage the trajectory that we 
are on.
  I don't think the immigration bill passed by the Senate is here at 
the House. I think it has got an origination problem, and it is 
unconstitutional. If there is a bill at the desk, I will be happy to 
look at it, but I don't think that has occurred. The gentleman knows 
that.
  This bill that we are considering today would lower the price of 
natural gas delivered to consumers in the State of Massachusetts. I 
have a table prepared by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The 
national average for natural gas is $9.19 per thousand cubic feet. In 
Massachusetts, it is $13.18.
  So this is a bill today that could deliver product to the gentleman's 
constituents in Massachusetts at a much more reasonable price. This 
sounds to me like a bill that will help the economy. This sounds to me 
like a bill that may provide jobs for the American people.
  The minority whip talked about the doc fix. Our committee, the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, did pass, in a bipartisan fashion, 
the repeal of the sustainable growth rate formula. I think it is a good 
bill. I think it is a bill where we had participation from both sides 
of the dais and not a single dissenting vote when we voted on the bill 
in committee right before the August recess.
  There is another body here in the Capitol Building. They are 
considering their own version of a similar bill in the appropriate 
Finance Committee over in the other body. I don't want to prejudge or 
preclude what they will or won't do. I am anxious for them to do 
something that would give us a negotiating point where we could 
consider moving forward with a final repeal of this problem, but in 
fact, the legislative branch consists of two bodies--this body and the 
body on the other side. Until the Finance Committee acts, there is 
little more that the Energy and Commerce Committee can do to push that 
bill forward.
  Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of a critical 
bill to ensure our energy infrastructure needs are being met. Mr. 
Pompeo has done a good job. I applaud him and our committee for the 
thoughtful legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying 
bill.

 [From the Energy & Commerce Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, 
                             Nov. 19, 2013]

  H.R. 1900 Needed To Deliver Affordable American Energy to Consumers


House to Vote This Week on Legislation to Speed Up Natural Gas Pipeline 
                                Projects

       This week the House of Representatives will consider H.R. 
     1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act. 
     Authored by Energy and Commerce Committee member Rep. Mike 
     Pompeo (R-KS), the bill will help ensure consumers have 
     access to affordable and reliable energy by modernizing the 
     permitting process for interstate natural gas pipelines. It 
     is a critical part of the committee's efforts to build the 
     architecture of abundance, and will allow American families 
     and businesses across the country to enjoy the benefits of 
     the U.S. shale gas boom.

[[Page 17593]]

       America is experiencing a surge in natural gas production 
     but right now we simply don't have the infrastructure to 
     accommodate this increased supply and deliver this low-cost 
     energy to consumers and manufacturers. And as gas gains a 
     greater market share of the nation's electricity portfolio, 
     many regions of the country do not have the pipeline capacity 
     to support this conversion, leaving consumers vulnerable to 
     price spikes. We saw this play out last January as areas of 
     the country, particularly along the East Coast, faced gas 
     shortages and high prices. According to a recent blog post by 
     the Energy Information Administration, ``The increased use of 
     natural gas for electricity generation has raised concerns 
     about fuel diversity, as the Northeast is also reliant on 
     natural gas for part of its heating needs and has limited 
     pipeline capacity to bring gas to market. The winter of 2012-
     13 saw spikes in wholesale electricity prices in New England 
     and New York as demand for natural gas from both electric 
     generators and natural gas distribution companies taxed the 
     capacity to bring natural gas into these markets.''
       The chart below highlights those states that suffered the 
     most last winter from high natural gas prices and the lack of 
     adequate infrastructure, with natural gas prices reaching up 
     to 68% higher than the national average:


  Residential Natural Gas Prices for January 2013: National Average: 
                                 $9.19*

Alabama......................................................$14.44/57%
Arizona......................................................$11.07/20%
Connecticut..................................................$13.07/42%
Delaware.....................................................$12.32/34%
Florida......................................................$15.43/68%
Georgia......................................................$12.92/41%
Maine........................................................$15.33/67%
Maryland.....................................................$10.73/17%
Massachusetts................................................$13.18/43%
New Hampshire................................................$11.99/30%
New Jersey...................................................$10.81/18%
New York.....................................................$11.42/24%
North Carolina...............................................$11.07/20%
Pennsylvania.................................................$10.48/14%
Rhode Island.................................................$12.58/37%
South Carolina...............................................$11.88/29%
Vermont......................................................$14.73/60%
Virginia.....................................................$11.10/21%
Washington...................................................$10.47/14%
       *Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet
       Source: U.S. EIA

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about the rule 
governing debate on this bill, H.R. 1900, the ``Natural Gas Pipeline 
Permitting Act.''
  Mr. Speaker, as I stated yesterday when we debated the other energy 
bills, I am not anti-energy exploration. I am not pro- or anti-
fracking. I am, however strongly ``pro-jobs,'' ``pro-economic growth,'' 
and ``pro-sustainable environment.''
  As a Member of Congress from Houston I have always been mindful of 
the importance of, and have strongly advocated for, national energy 
policies that will make our nation energy independent, preserve and 
create jobs, and keep our nation's economy strong.
  That is why I carefully consider each energy legislative proposal 
brought to the floor on its individual merits and support them when 
they are sound, balanced, fair, and promote the national interest.
  Where they fall short, I believe in working across the aisle to 
improve them if possible by offering constructive amendments.
  Although I believe the nation would benefit by increased pipeline 
capacity to transport our abundant supplies of natural gas, the 
legislation before contains several provisions that are of great 
concern to me.
  Pursuant to Section 2, paragraph (4) of the bill, a permit or license 
for a natural gas pipeline project is ``deemed'' approved if the 
Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC) or other federal agencies 
do not issue the permit or license within 90-120 days.
  I have three concerns with this regulatory scheme.
  First, as a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I have a 
problem with ``deeming'' something done that has not been done in fact.
  Thus, the provision is unwise.
  Second, this provision is a remedy in search of a problem. There is 
no lengthy or intolerable backlog of neglected natural gas pipeline 
projects awaiting action by FERC.
  The provision is unnecessary because FERC has, since fiscal year 
2009, completed action on 92 percent (504 out of 548) of all pipeline 
applications that it has received within one year of receipt. And the 
remaining 8% of decisions that have taken longer than one year involve 
complex proposals that merit additional review and consideration.
  Third, the provision is irresponsible because it would require FERC 
to and other agencies to make decisions based on incomplete information 
or information that may not be available within the stringent 
deadlines, and to deny applications that otherwise would have been 
approved, but for lack of sufficient review time.
  Compounding the problem is the fact that FERC like virtually every 
federal agency is operating under the onerous and draconian provisions 
of the disastrous sequestration which has caused so much misery and 
disruption across the nation and to our economy.
  FERC, for example, with a budget of $306 million faces a $15 million 
reduction in spending authority this fiscal year, according to OMB. 
That sum amounts to 5% of FERC's budget.
  So the likely impact of this bill if passed is to put FERC in the 
position of having to work faster to issue decisions with fewer 
experienced employees and a reduction in resources.
  Given the inherent dangers involved in the construction and operation 
of a natural gas pipeline, does anyone doubt that this state of affairs 
is likely to lead to FERC to err on the side of caution and deny 
applications that may otherwise been approved if it had more time and 
more resources to carry out its responsibilities?
  Mr. Speaker, we should not take that chance. That is why I offered an 
amendment, which the Rules Committee made in order, to suspend the 
effectiveness of this legislation so long as sequestration is in 
effect. I urge all Members to support the Jackson Lee Amendment when it 
comes to the floor later this week.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 420 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration of the resolution 
     (H. Res. 424) prohibiting the consideration of a concurrent 
     resolution providing for adjournment unless the House has 
     adopted a conference report on the budget resolution by 
     December 13, 2013, if called up by Representative Slaughter 
     of New York or her designee. All points of order against the 
     resolution and against its consideration are waived.
                                  ____



        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

[[Page 17594]]

     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. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. McGOVERN. 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223, 
nays 195, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 592]

                               YEAS--223

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--195

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bachmann
     Braley (IA)
     Campbell
     Ellmers
     Gabbard
     Herrera Beutler
     Johnson, Sam
     McCarthy (NY)
     Meng
     Radel
     Rush
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, Mses. WILSON of Florida and SLAUGHTER 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. YOUNG of Alaska and CARTER changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 592, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, on November 20, 2013, I was unavoidably 
detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall No. 592. Had I 
been present I would have voted ``nay'' on ordering the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225, 
noes 194, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 593]

                               AYES--225

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent

[[Page 17595]]


     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--194

     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Campbell
     Diaz-Balart
     Ellmers
     Gohmert
     Herrera Beutler
     McCarthy (NY)
     Meng
     Pittenger
     Radel
     Rush
     Wenstrup


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1352

  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. PITTENGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 593, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''


                          personal explanation

  Mrs. ELLMERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 592 and 593, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''


                          personal explanation

  Mrs. MENG. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 592 and 593, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________