[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4936-4940]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 678, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION SMALL 
           CONDUIT HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT AND RURAL JOBS ACT

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 140 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 140

       Resolved, That at any time after the 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. 678) to authorize all Bureau of Reclamation 
     conduit facilities for hydropower development under Federal 
     Reclamation law, 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 Natural Resources. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. No 
     amendment to the bill shall be in order except: (1) those 
     received for printing in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII 
     dated at least one day before the day of consideration of the 
     amendment; and (2) pro forma amendments for the purpose of 
     debate. Each amendment so received may be offered only by the 
     Member who caused it to be printed or a designee and shall be 
     considered as read if printed. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for 
the purpose of debate only.
  This resolution provides for a modified open rule for the 
consideration of H.R. 678, the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit 
Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act, and provides for 1 hour of 
general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

[[Page 4937]]

  It makes in order all amendments which were preprinted in the 
Congressional Record and which otherwise comply with the rules of the 
House. So this modified open rule is very fair, it's a generous rule, 
and it will provide for a balanced and open debate on the merits of 
this particular bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm also pleased to stand before the House and support 
this rule, as well as the underlying legislation, H.R. 678, which is 
the long title I gave earlier.
  I appreciate the hard work of the bill's chief sponsor, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), as well as the chairman of the Natural 
Resources Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), and 
of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, Mr. McClintock of California, for 
allowing this bill to move forward from the committee and continuing 
the Natural Resource Committee's record, under Chairman Hastings' 
leadership, of furthering several important pieces of legislation 
which, if enacted, will greatly improve our Nation's energy policies 
and provide a responsible, balanced approach to further domestic energy 
development.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman 
from Utah for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, last Friday we received the news that the economy had 
only added 88,000 jobs in the month of March. The percentage of 
unemployed Americans dropped, but that is almost entirely because 
thousands of workers have given up looking for jobs at all.
  This slowdown is a warning to Congress, but we won't take it, I feel 
sure, since we've pretty much ignored it. Unless this majority reverses 
the spending cuts contained in the sequester, the health of our economy 
is only getting worse.
  Months ago, economists were warning that the sequester will stall out 
our economy and lead to job loss, and as we can see by the March data, 
their predictions are beginning to come true.
  With economic warning bells beginning to toll, one would expect 
Congress to make job creation our number one priority. But one would 
certainly be wrong because we haven't done that at all. Unfortunately, 
such expectations don't even come close.
  Instead of working on legislation to grow our economy and to create 
some good-paying jobs, we are wasting valuable session time discussing 
yet another bill that went nowhere in the last Congress, and I predict 
will go nowhere in this one as well. But we seem to have the time to 
waste.
  The majority has decided that erasing environmental regulations for 
hydropower companies is a better use of time than putting Americans 
back to work and to help families pay their bills.
  Furthermore, the bill before us today is a solution in search of a 
problem that does not exist. Despite the rhetoric of the majority, 
small conduit hydropower projects are rarely delayed because of 
environmental regulations. In fact, from 2006 to 2010, 13 exemptions 
were completed in less than a year, and in 2011 there were nine 
exemptions that were granted in an average of 40 days.
  In addition, changes within the last year have made the process even 
easier for hydropower developers. Under the new regulations by the 
Bureau of Reclamation, all a developer has to do to avoid a full 
environmental assessment is to get a simple, 1\1/2\ page form filled 
out with 15 boxes to check ``yes'' or ``no.'' That is certainly not a 
burdensome regulation. All they have to do is check the box ``yes'' or 
``no,'' indicate the project is not in an especially sensitive area.
  Most small conduit hydropower projects will easily pass this test 
because the reclamation sites are already developed. But despite what 
you may hear, there is little evidence that there is even a problem 
with hydropower regulation that needs to be solved.
  Contained within today's legislation is a proposal to clarify the 
lines of authority between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission. This is a worthwhile effort that would 
receive bipartisan support, and we made that very clear. Standing 
alone, though, this proposal could pass on suspension within a matter 
of minutes. That would, of course, leave us with nothing to do here 
today, so here we are.
  During the debate in the Natural Resources Committee, the majority 
was given the opportunity to agree to the noncontroversial and 
bipartisan parts of the legislation and drop their partisan attacks on 
environmental safeguards.

                              {time}  1250

  Unfortunately, the majority has once again rejected this chance for 
productive compromise and chosen the partisan path. And as a result, we 
are here spending time debating another partisan bill that will not 
pass the Senate and turning our back on the pressing economic needs of 
this country.
  I've said many times on the floor during rules debates that CBS News 
had estimated it costs $24 million a week to run the Congress of the 
United States. And it has been embarrassing that we do so little work. 
But for millions of Americans, the luxury of the time that we take here 
is something they cannot afford.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation so 
we can get back to the task of growing our economy, repealing the 
sequester, and creating American jobs.
  I reserve the balance of my time.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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 Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of this piece of 
legislation, to explain why it is so necessary that we do this, even 
though on paper it seems like this problem is solved.
  Mr. TIPTON. I thank Chairman Bishop for yielding.
  When we're talking about job creation in this country, I think it's 
worthy to note I just traveled through the Third Congressional District 
of Colorado visiting with people from Pueblo to Alamosa, Durango, 
Cortez, Montrose, Craig, Hayden, and Steamboat. One of the greatest 
challenges that they face is regulations coming out of Washington when 
it comes to job creation.
  The fact of the matter is we're spending $1.75 trillion per year for 
businesses to be able to comply with government mandates. Is it a 
sensible approach to be able to look at regulations that simply don't 
work and are inhibiting job creation and our ability to be able to 
achieve the most carbon-free, environmentally friendly legislation that 
we can have? That's hydropower. That is a sensible approach.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to vote in favor of House Resolution 140 and for an open 
discussion on how we're going to be able to work together to be able to 
promote clean, renewable hydropower development in rural America and 
create much-needed jobs in the process. At a time when our country 
needs to be able to focus on domestic energy production and job 
creation, hydropower can play a critical role in providing clean 
renewable energy while expanding job opportunities in some of our 
hardest hit rural communities.
  Hydropower is the cheapest and cleanest source of electricity 
available through modern technology. It's the highest source of non-
carbon-emitting energy in the world and accounts for approximately 75 
percent of the United States' total renewable electricity generation, 
making it the leading renewable energy resource of power. Canal-based 
hydropower can produce up to 1,400 megawatts of power in Colorado 
alone. Let's put this in perspective. This is the equivalent of the 
power produced by the originally designed output of the Glen Canyon 
Dam, just out of Colorado, not including the rest of the western United 
States.

[[Page 4938]]

  Increased conduit hydropower serves a number of purposes: it produces 
renewable and emissions-free energy that can be used to pump water or 
sell electricity to the grid; it can offset diesel-generated pumps; it 
can generate revenue for the hydropower developer to help pay for aging 
infrastructure costs and water/power facility modernization; and it can 
create local jobs and generate revenue for the Federal Government.
  As it stands, Federal regulations hinder this development on Federal 
projects and subject job creators to unnecessary requirements which can 
render small hydropower projects economically unfeasible. For this 
reason, I introduced H.R. 678, the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit 
Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act. This legislation authorizes 
power development at the agency's conduits to clear up multi-agency 
confusion and duplicative processes and reduces the regulatory costs 
associated with hydropower development.
  H.R. 678, as passed by the Natural Resources Committee with 
bipartisan support, would eliminate the requirement of duplicative and 
unnecessary environmental analyses for projects on manmade facilities 
which already underwent a full environmental review at the time of 
their construction or when undergoing rehabilitation. The bill covers 
small hydropower generators installed on manmade pipes, ditches, and 
canals; and the renewable energy development promoted by the bill in no 
way impacts the natural environment. By streamlining this process, we 
can finally make these small conduit hydropower projects financially 
feasible and unleash private investment in clean energy that will 
reduce costs for ratepayers and increase tax revenue for the Treasury 
while putting people back to work.
  I understand that some of my friends on the other side have 
reservations about this provision; and as I have made clear in the 
past, I'm open to working with my colleagues to be able to address 
their concerns with the NEPA provision. However, failure to address the 
existing regulatory uncertainty would negate one of the primary 
purposes of the bill and would ensure that the renewable energy 
development envisioned by the bill remains in limbo. I'm optimistic 
that discussing this issue openly will allay any concerns Members may 
have and allow us to be able to arrive at a solution which ensures the 
implementation of a statutory framework that streamlines the project 
approval process and reduces costs.
  I'm proud to have the support of the Family Farm Alliance, the 
National Water Resources Association, and the American Public Power 
Association, among others. I think the broad support this bill has seen 
among those most directly impacted indicates how close we are to making 
this renewable energy development a reality. I look forward to an open 
discussion on the merits of the bill, which I believe will speak for 
themselves.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I reserve the balance of my time until my colleague is ready to close.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Let me take a moment just to give my impression 
of this particular bill, and then I'll be ready to close at that time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill which had a bipartisan vote in 
this body last time and a bipartisan vote in the committee, sent to the 
Senate, where an errant Senator was able to hold the process up. 
Fortunately, in this session, there is a new chairman of that committee 
in the Senate from the West who clearly understands the value and 
significance of hydroelectric power.
  So I think that everyone in this body on both sides of the aisle can 
agree that our Nation is in great need of more energy. If we want to 
create real jobs, private sector jobs, there has to be a strong energy 
component to our ability to do that. Our Nation has tremendous amounts 
of energy that are locked away domestically in the forms of oil and gas 
and low sulphur and high-BTU coal reserves; but too often special 
interest groups and layers of bureaucracy have kept us from becoming 
more energy self-sufficient with these areas. And we're now seeing and 
feeling the results every time somebody tries to pay an electric bill.
  This administration seems to be dragging its feet on energy 
development of everything from the Keystone Pipeline to the development 
of public lands. But there is also another source of energy that is 
presently being unused and can be put to good use without negatively 
impacting the environment. The energy resource is what we're addressing 
here in this particular bill. This bill deals with electricity that can 
be generated from hydro, a renewable energy resource that is very clean 
and helpful to the environment.
  Numerous witnesses testified this year and last year that there is an 
uncertainty on the NEPA costs, which throw these projects into limbo 
and often render projects financially unfeasible and stifle private 
investment far beyond what has been able to be done. Thus, this is 
stifling what could be done to produce self-sufficiency in energy 
production. One witness from Arizona simply testified in 2011 that it 
would cost them $20,000 to install this generator that would create 
energy in a Federal canal. Yet the NEPA analysis would cost them 
$50,000 to check the boxes and do that simple paperwork, as we have 
heard about. The environmental paperwork in this case is almost three 
times the cost of the capital that you would put into the project. And 
it all is redundant since the NEPA analysis was done in the first place 
for the entire canal. This is a second project put in the same canal 
that has already gone through this process. It's a manmade canal.
  Witnesses have testified this year that despite the Bureau of 
Reclamation's claim of its categorical exclusions and having a policy 
in place, not one project has utilized this project because of a 
potential legal uncertainty surrounding categorical exclusions.

                              {time}  1300

  As a result, there is no new development that has occurred, and the 
gentleman from Colorado's amendment will improve this particular 
situation. So, once again, let this be done.
  This is not denying a NEPA review. NEPA has already been done on 
every one of these projects. This is saying you don't need to do the 
same thing a second time, which is simply redundant, it is silly, it's 
red tape, bungling by administrations that need not be there.
  The choice is very simple in this particular bill: Either you can 
give the administration, the executive branch, the right to make these 
kinds of decisions on moving us forward, in which case the 
administration can make and can take away their decision at whim, in 
which case it invites litigation because of the uncertainty of an 
administrative policy, and also invites conflict within different 
administrative agencies. Or we can do what we're supposed to do and 
actually pass legislation to solve problems. The gentleman from 
Colorado's approach is simply allowing the legislature to make the 
decision, to institute what the policy will be and tell the agencies 
how they will proceed into the future. We can either have the 
legislature stand up and do our job and do it the right way or we can 
pass it all off and let the executive branch come up with regulations 
now which they could change and also are subject to the fear of 
litigation.
  This is an easy thing to do. This bill actually should be a no-
brainer. It will increase the energy production we have in the country, 
it will increase the ability of making sure that we have adequate water 
resources in the West, it will also give a needed boost of revenues to 
the canal companies, and it will create ultimately more jobs, 
especially with a cheap form of highly effective energy production.
  This bill is reasonable, and it's understandable why it passed with a 
bipartisan vote last time. I hope it passes with a bipartisan vote 
again, and I hope we can recognize that this will move us forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time unless the 
gentlelady has other speeches that she has requests for.

[[Page 4939]]


  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, so I am 
prepared to close if my colleague is.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am prepared to close when you are.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, today's bill does nothing to address the pressing 
economic issues facing every American household and fails to stop the 
sequestration cuts that are threatening our economy as a whole. It's 
rather ambiguous. On one hand it gives; on the other hand it takes back 
away, but we'll get into that in the general debate.
  Instead, today's legislation unnecessarily attacks environmental 
protections while doing nothing to create new jobs. Today's legislation 
includes a blanket waiver for all small conduit hydropower projects 
that generate less than 5 megawatts of power. The requirement is 
arbitrary and would fail to protect the environment. Environmental 
danger is not determined by the megawatts produced but whether the 
hydropower project is located where it is likely to do damage. A 1-
megawatt project in the wrong location would be more harmful to the 
environment than a 6-megawatt project in the right location.
  Perhaps most importantly, consideration of this legislation is taking 
up time that we could otherwise be using to repeal the sequester and 
create jobs. As I have mentioned repeatedly on the House floor, my 
colleague and ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen, 
has appeared at the Rules Committee repeatedly offering legislation to 
repeal the sequester and reduce our deficit in a responsible way. The 
Rules Committee on at least three times has never even allowed it to 
come to the floor. Despite voting on hydropower legislation twice in 
the last 13 months, the majority has rejected Mr. Van Hollen, who, as I 
said, is the ranking member on the Budget Committee, and his bill would 
save and create thousands of jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 1426 from Representative Tim 
Bishop of New York to roll back tax giveaways to big oil companies. The 
bill is known as the Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act. Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record 
along with extraneous matter immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question so that we can get back to trying to grow 
our economy and create American jobs, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me state a couple 
of things. Number one, this is a good rule. Therefore, you should vote 
for this rule. It is a fair and open rule--a fair and modified open 
rule. More importantly, it is a rule that will allow us to discuss a 
very good bill. This bill encourages energy production. We may think of 
these as small energy projects, but I am told that all these small 
projects already being held up in Colorado would create the amount of 
energy that comes from a large project like the Glen Canyon Dam. It's a 
large amount of energy that is clean energy that we will be producing. 
Number two, this bill gets rid of redundancy. It is not that we are 
doing away with environmental protection or a review for environmental 
protection. That environmental protection review has already been done. 
It is that we're simply saying for these small projects you don't need 
to do the same thing a second time and incur the cost, which is an 
amazing amount of cost, and potential litigation factors that go along 
with it.
  If we do want to produce private sector jobs, and that is a worthy 
goal, you have to have energy to do it. This bill produces the energy 
which will be used to grow the economy to produce those jobs that we 
really want. That is why it is a bipartisan bill, and I expect a 
bipartisan vote on this particular bill. It's a good bill, and we 
should pass it today. This is a fair rule, and I urge its adoption.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

    An Amendment to H. Res. 140 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1426) to disallow the deduction for income attributable to 
     domestic production activities with respect to oil and gas 
     activities of major integrated oil companies. 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 Ways and Means. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of 
     the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution 
     on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House 
     shall, immediately after the third daily order of business 
     under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the 
     Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 1426.
                                  ____


        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

[[Page 4940]]

     for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda and 
     allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer 
     an alternative plan.

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. With that, 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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 236, 
nays 190, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 93]

                               YEAS--236

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     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
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     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
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     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
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     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
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--190

     Andrews
     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
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     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
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     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)
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     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--5

     Castor (FL)
     Hastings (FL)
     Lynch
     Markey
     Ros-Lehtinen

                              {time}  1334

  Mr. PASCRELL changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________