[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 10417-10425]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1613, OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 
 TRANSBOUNDARY HYDROCARBON AGREEMENTS AUTHORIZATION ACT; PROVIDING FOR 
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2231, OFFSHORE ENERGY AND JOBS ACT; PROVIDING FOR 
 CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2410, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND 
  DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014; 
PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM JUNE 20, 2013, THROUGH 
                  JULY 5, 2013; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules I call up House Resolution 274 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 274

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     1613) to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to 
     provide for the proper Federal management and oversight of 
     transboundary hydrocarbon reservoirs, and for other purposes. 
     All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
     waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed 
     in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural 
     Resources; (2) the further amendment printed in part A of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, if offered by Representative Grayson of Florida 
     or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention 
     of any point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be 
     separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question; and (3) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  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. 2231) to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to 
     increase energy exploration and production on the Outer 
     Continental Shelf, provide for equitable revenue sharing for 
     all coastal States, implement the reorganization of the 
     functions of the former Minerals Management Service into 
     distinct and separate agencies, 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. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Natural Resources 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 113-16. 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 part B 
     of 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. 3.  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. 2410) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2014, 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 Appropriations. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the 
     bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are 
     waived except as follows: section 717; section 718; the words 
     ``or any other'' on page 64, line 13; the words ``or any 
     other'' on page 65, line 9; and section 740. Where points of 
     order are waived against part of a section, points of order 
     against a provision in another part of such section may be 
     made only against such provision and not against the entire 
     section. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
     chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 
     of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to 
     the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, 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. 4.  On any legislative day during the period from June 
     29, 2013, through July 5, 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. 5.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 6.  It shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order to consider concurrent resolutions providing 
     for adjournment during the month of July.
       Sec. 7.  The Committee on Appropriations may, at any time 
     before 6 p.m. on Wednesday, July 3, 2013, file privileged 
     reports to accompany measures making appropriations for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2014.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 1 
hour.

                              {time}  1240

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to our good friend, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings), who I certainly hope is feeling better than the 
way he's walking today, 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. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days during which they may 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. This resolution provides for a structured rule 
for the consideration of H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act of 
2013, as well as H.R. 1613, the Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary 
Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act, and makes several specific 
amendments in order to each bill which are germane and compliant with 
the rules of the House. This proposed rule also provides for an open 
rule for consideration of H.R. 2410, the Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies bill.
  These energy bills, if enacted, will help foster responsible 
development of our abundant offshore domestic energy resources and will 
do so in an environmentally responsible manner. H.R. 2231

[[Page 10418]]

would help reverse some of the current administration's energy 
policies, which are stalling responsible offshore lease development on 
the Outer Continental Shelf. This legislation would require that the 
administration implement a new 5-year leasing plan, including 50 
percent of the areas that have been previously identified as the most 
promising in oil reserves and natural gas.
  The average American consumer has seen their energy bill double since 
this administration started. A gallon of gas was under $2 when the 
President was first sworn in. It's now routinely more than $4 a 
gallon--and continues to climb. And yet the administration deliberately 
stalls and blocks job-creating, energy-producing projects like the 
Keystone pipeline for the responsible development of coal and tar sands 
reserves we have on our public lands, including in my own State. This 
actually hits the middle class and the poor class the worst.
  H.R. 2231 will streamline the current bureaucracy handling these 
leases and will also implement a fair and equitable revenue-sharing 
plan for coastal States. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated 
that passage of this bill will reduce net direct spending of the 
Federal Government by $1.5 billion over the next 10 years. So, in 
essence, you have a bill that makes us more energy independent, drives 
down the cost of fuel for U.S. families, helps reduce the cost of the 
Federal Government, and produces an estimated 1.2 million jobs. I 
think, by most standards, that would be considered a fairly good bill.
  Likewise, the other bill in the rule, H.R. 1613, the Outer 
Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization 
Act, will provide for improved Federal management and oversight of 
energy resources which straddle international boundaries. Passage of 
this act will implement an agreement we already have with the 
Government of Mexico on how to handle development of these resources, 
including revenue-sharing concepts, as well as ensuring that the United 
States companies that are investing will develop their resources but 
not be imperiled by actions that may be taken later on by the 
Government.
  Finally, the resolution also provides for a modified open rule for 
consideration of H.R. 2410, the fiscal year 2014 Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
appropriations bill, which continues what was common when I first 
arrived here and then stopped but was then reinstated and continues to 
be reinstated by Chairman Pete Sessions--having open rules on our 
appropriations bills.
  I'm appreciative of the Rules Committee chairman's leadership in this 
regard. I'm also appreciative of the hard work and dedication of the 
bill's sponsors. First, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), 
the gentleman from Washington, also chairman of the House Natural 
Resources Committee (Mr. Hastings), as well as the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), for his leadership on the Agriculture 
appropriation bill. In short, this is a fair and good rule dealing with 
good pieces of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, these are good bills. I urge their adoption, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Utah, my friend 
(Mr. Bishop), for yielding the customary 30 minutes to me.
  This rule provides for the consideration of three bills, as 
enunciated by my friend from Utah. However, the only thing that these 
bills have in common is that they're overwhelmingly partisan in nature 
and fail to address the most pressing challenges facing our country. 
Bottom line: we should be doing all that we can to help struggling 
Americans get back on their feet.
  The first bill, H.R. 1613, had been relatively noncontroversial and 
could have been addressed under suspension. But instead, my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle have chosen to take the partisan route 
by including a provision that waives the Securities and Exchange 
Commission natural resources extraction disclosure rule of the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which requires 
the disclosure of payments from oil and gas companies to foreign 
governments. I just simply don't understand why this poison pill was 
added.
  Similarly, H.R. 2231 opens up new, unsafe drilling off the coasts of 
14 States at a time when domestic energy production is booming. 
Furthermore, the bill does virtually nothing--and I asked that question 
of our colleague, Mr. Duncan from South Carolina--to implement key 
safety reforms in the wake of the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster and 
constrains the statutory review process for offshore drilling.
  This is a part of the Republicans' ``drill, baby, drill'' energy 
policy agenda. While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
continue to bring bills like this to the floor which contain huge 
giveaways to Big Oil, it is clear that they're not interested in doing 
a thing to protect worker safety, the environment, or the tourism and 
fishing industries. It is astounding that Congress would move forward 
to open new natural gas and oil leases when this institution has not 
acted on the recommendation to improve the safety of offshore drilling. 
If we didn't learn anything at all from BP, we're not ever going to 
learn anything. The successor to the BP spill commission recently gave 
Congress a D-plus grade on its legislative response to the spill.
  Before opening any new leases, we should enact legislation to improve 
safety and eliminate or adjust the liability caps upward. We have a 
pitiable liability cap now of $75 million.
  It is time to get real about energy policy. We need to invest in the 
development of renewable resources, which would reduce our impact on 
climate change and move us towards true energy independence. These two 
bills today aren't about gas prices or job creation. They're about 
bolstering the Republicans' political base and lining the pockets of 
Big Oil and gas CEOs.
  Republicans' refusal to address the sequester and insistence upon 
limited cuts in the Homeland Security, MilCon/VA, and DOD 
appropriations bills leave all the other nondefense measures like H.R. 
2410 before us today with inadequate funding levels. The refusal by my 
friends on the other side to appoint conferees to reach a bipartisan 
compromise on the budget and end the sequester has left us with this 
disastrous agriculture bill that we saw last week. As my Republican 
colleagues very well know, there are $214 million in cuts to Women, 
Infants, and Children, or WIC, funding, which will prevent 214,000 
eligible applicants from receiving the nutrition they need.

                              {time}  1250

  Furthermore, there are $284 million in cuts to Food for Peace that 
will result in 7.4 million fewer people receiving food aid from the 
United States. Mr. Speaker, I'd really laugh, except the prioritization 
of partisanship and politics over responsibility has become par for the 
course in the Republican-controlled Congress.
  As I pointed out before, just last week the Republican partisan farm 
bill was scuttled. Traditionally--I'm here now 21 years, and that bill, 
at times that it was brought appropriately, was a bipartisan piece of 
legislation. Draconian cuts and work requirements imposed upon programs 
that benefit the poorest among us effectively killed any chance of the 
FARRM Bill passing. Rather than see passage of a strong, bipartisan 
bill, Republicans deliberately made it unpalatable to even strong 
agriculture supporters like myself. These are not the priorities of a 
Nation that cares about its poor. These are the priorities of a 
Republican Party that cares only about itself.
  The poor are not villains. Many are trapped in inescapable situations 
due to circumstances totally beyond their control and largely, in many 
instances, by our making here in this institution. Mr. Speaker, it's 
hard to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when those bootstraps, 
without any nourishment, may be the only thing you have to eat.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the author of 
one of the bills in here, as well as the chairman of the Natural 
Resources Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

[[Page 10419]]


  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding time, 
and I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying legislation 
covered by the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, in our country today, millions of Americans continue to 
search for work, the national average price of gasoline is $3.50, and 
rising costs of everything from electricity to food to health care 
makes it tough for families and small businesses to make ends meet. But 
instead of providing relief for struggling Americans, President Obama 
yesterday announced a plan that will inflict further pain and cause 
further damage to our struggling economy.
  The President's latest attempt to unilaterally impose a national 
energy tax will cost American jobs and will increase energy prices. 
Now, in stark contrast to that, Mr. Speaker, Republicans are advancing 
solutions to expand access to affordable energy in order to create jobs 
and to lower energy costs. The bills the House is considering this week 
are necessary because of the Obama administration's persistent and 
destructive attacks on American energy production. The President's 
latest efforts to impose new energy taxes and government red tape 
follow 4.5 years of erecting American energy roadblocks.
  H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act, will unlock our offshore 
energy resources that are being held captive by this administration. 
The differences are clear between the President's current no-new-
drilling-and-no-new-jobs plan and the Republican pro-energy, pro-jobs 
offshore drilling plan. The President's 5-year current offshore leasing 
plan keeps 85 percent of offshore areas under lock and key--Mr. 
Speaker, keeps 85 percent under lock and key--effectively reinstating 
the moratoria that were lifted right before he took office.
  The Republican drill-smart plan would open new areas containing the 
most oil and natural gas resources, allowing for new energy production 
in parts of the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts. The President's plan 
refuses even to let Virginia develop its offshore resources until after 
2017 and cancels a lease sale that would have allowed them to go 
offshore 2 years ago.
  The Republican plan supports the bipartisan wishes of the Virginia 
Governor, the congressional delegation, and the public by requiring an 
offshore lease sale to be held.
  The President's plan suppresses American job creation and economic 
growth. Our plan, Mr. Speaker, in contrast, would create 1.2 million 
jobs long term and would generate $1.5 billion in new revenue. This 
Republican approach is exactly what our country and our economy needs 
right now.
  We can do better than what the President outlined yesterday that 
stifles American energy production and raises energy costs.
  I urge adoption of the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I would say to my very good friend and 
namesake, if you can do better, do it.
  I'm very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) with whom I serve on the 
Rules Committee.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, last week, the FARRM Bill failed. It 
failed in large part because of Republicans' nasty attacks on America's 
nutrition and anti-hunger programs.
  Notwithstanding the experience of last week, in this rule the House 
is considering debating the agriculture appropriations bill, a bill 
that not only underfunds the WIC program, but actually makes it more 
difficult for low-income women to receive breastfeeding counseling.
  Mr. Speaker, it's as if the Republican leadership hasn't learned from 
its mistakes. WIC is a critical program that provides food and 
nutrition counseling for low-income, pregnant and breastfeeding women, 
as well as for newborns and infants. It is an important and successful 
program. It is a key program that helps pregnant and breastfeeding 
women stay healthy through proper nutrition and actually helps prevent 
many health issues associated with poor nutrition.
  Despite the program's 39-year successful track record, the 
Republicans decided to include WIC in their sequester plan. Unlike 
SNAP--which, thankfully, was excluded from the sequester and every 
single major deficit reduction plan--the WIC program was subjected to 
the sequester. And the FY 2014 agriculture appropriations bill includes 
a major cut to the WIC program.
  The cuts to WIC in this bill could result in over 200,000 pregnant 
mothers and infants losing access to nutritious food. And tapping into 
the reserve fund isn't going to cover everyone; 55,000 moms and kids 
will go without the nutrition that they need.
  And WIC is so severely underfunded that the breastfeeding counseling 
program--a cornerstone of this program--is zeroed out. I guess I 
shouldn't be surprised that this House of Representatives would promote 
such anti-women, anti-mother, anti-child legislation. After all, this 
is the same House that allowed an all-male Republican majority in the 
Judiciary Committee to write and promote legislation that attacked a 
woman's right to choose. And by the way, President Obama is threatening 
a veto of the agriculture appropriations bill in large part because of 
these draconian cuts. I would say to my Republican friends: stop your 
assault against poor people in this country.
  Now, this agriculture appropriations bill would be bad enough on its 
own. It would be better if the Appropriations Committee would redraft 
the bill at pre-sequester funding levels so we're not forced to choose 
between programs like food safety and WIC, for example.
  But what is particularly egregious about this rule that we're 
considering is what is not included. What's not included is a fix to 
the upcoming doubling of the student loan interest rates. Congress is 
going to leave for the 4th of July recess on Friday; yet interest rates 
are scheduled to double if Congress doesn't act before July 1.
  We need an immediate fix to this problem; but instead of working to 
prevent penalizing millions of students who are looking for help paying 
for college, the Republican leadership is forcing the House to debate 
tired, retread bills like offshore drilling expansion that have no 
chance of becoming law. Instead of pushing legislation that helps banks 
and lenders make even more money, we ought to help the middle class, we 
ought to help our students.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the comments that were just made by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts about a program which does fund $6.7 
billion in the WIC program and was passed unanimously by voice vote 
from both parties in the Appropriations Committee.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the sponsor of one of the bills that 
is part of this rule, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I rise today in support of two of the 
bills that are under this rule, H.R. 1613, the Outer Continental Shelf 
Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act, and H.R. 2231, 
the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act. Both these bills do three things--
they provide for jobs; they provide for energy security; and they 
provide for national security.
  Let's put Americans to work harvesting the resources that we have 
here in this country, and let's meet our energy needs. Because as 
Admiral Mullen said, there can be no national security without energy 
security. Let me repeat that: there can be no national security without 
energy security.

                              {time}  1300

  Let's open up these offshore areas that we have resources under and 
let's produce American energy here at home, putting Americans to work 
to provide for our energy needs.
  I specifically rise to talk about H.R. 1613, which implements the 
Obama administration's own agreement, an agreement signed in Los Cabos 
by Secretary Clinton and Foreign Minister Espinosa from Mexico that 
says: Do you know what? There are resources under that shared boundary 
out in the Gulf of Mexico, the boundary shared between the United 
States and the country of Mexico; resources that can

[[Page 10420]]

be explored and produced to meet our energy needs here at home working 
with our southern neighbor--Mexico--to share those resources and share 
the revenues.
  Let's do it the right way. Let's do it with the American safety 
standards and American environmental standards that currently apply to 
American energy companies producing in the Gulf of Mexico. Let's 
require those Mexican companies to comply with those standards and then 
let's share those revenues. This is the right thing.
  H.R. 1613 will implement that agreement, but it will do something 
else. It will remove the uncertainty and provide for American 
competitiveness when you're competing with foreign countries such as 
Mexico. This is the right thing for America. Put Americans to work, 
meet energy needs, and meet our national security needs. That's why 
House Republicans have focused on an all-of-the-above American energy 
strategy, and these bills are part of that.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill.
  The so-called Offshore Energy and Jobs Act is nothing more than 
another old idea that will not become law. We have voted on a form of 
this legislation every year since the majority has been in control of 
this House, yet the same thing happens every time: it goes absolutely 
nowhere. Instead of working on new, more sustainable energy ideas, we 
find ourselves here yet again wasting our time on another misguided, 
destructive, and unnecessary drilling bill.
  I'm particularly dismayed that the bill, yet again, expands drilling 
in areas where voters have unequivocally said they don't want it. The 
devastating 1969 oil spill in Santa Barbara, California, galvanized our 
State against any more offshore drilling. That's why California 
permanently banned new oil and gas leasing in the State waters they 
control in 1994.
  This majority here, which gives lip service to respecting states' 
rights, has chosen, yet again, to override the will of voters in my 
district and my State by mandating immediate oil and gas lease sales 
off the coasts of Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties, despite our well-
known, long-standing bipartisan opposition.
  Later this week, I will be offering an amendment to strike these 
provisions, and I appreciate the Rules Committee for making my 
amendment in order. But expansion of drilling in southern California 
only scratches the surface of what's wrong with this bill. Simply put, 
it's a solution without a problem.
  Drilling, both onshore and offshore, has been expanding rapidly in 
recent years, and is showing no signs of slowing down. Last year, 
domestic offshore oil production was higher than it was at the end of 
the Bush administration. Oil production in the United States increased 
more last year than at any point since the inception of the oil 
industry in 1859.
  The Obama administration has offered, and continues to offer, 
millions of acres of public lands offshore for oil and gas exploration 
and production.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Yet, despite this expansion under the Obama 
administration, nearly 85 percent of the offshore acreage already under 
lease by the oil industry is not producing. Instead of recycling bad 
ideas and expanding drilling in areas where voters don't want it, we 
should be working together on a responsible, clean energy policy for 
the 21st century. This bill is just more of the same dirty energy 
policies of the past.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and reject the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 2\1/
2\ minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I will have a lot to say about the deficiencies to these two bills 
over the next 2 days. But today the Republicans are purporting two 
things: lower gas prices and reduce the deficit. They would have us 
believe this bill would do that. They're saying high gas prices are due 
to the fact there's not enough offshore oil drilling.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. There's actually a glut of 
oil in the Gulf region. It's all waiting in storage because, oh, the 
refineries are doing routine maintenance. Why are they doing that? 
Well, because it's the height of the driving season for the American 
people, therefore, they can gouge the consumers by pretending, oh, 
there's just no other time we could clean the refinery. It doesn't have 
anything to do with oil supplies. It has to do with a lack of refining 
capacity artificially manipulated and speculation on Wall Street.
  Secondly, they say they're addressing the deficit, that this is going 
to provide additional revenues in the future. In fact, they are so 
concerned about the deficit they would not allow an amendment I 
attempted to offer, supported by a number of west coast Members--three 
Governors of the Western United States--that would have protected the 
west coast from the mandatory drilling in this bill. They said that 
might preclude future revenue from future leases that might be let by a 
future President, and they said we might not get $1 billion 30 years in 
the future because of your amendment.
  However, there is an amendment by the gentleman from Louisiana, 
Representative Cassidy, who will mandate a diversion of $500 million a 
year of revenues flowing to the Treasury to the Gulf States for the 
next 30 years. Yes, we are going to forego or give up $15 billion of 
revenues to the Treasury, creating $15 billion more debt and deficit 
for the American people, but they waived the rules. That doesn't count.
  This all kind of reminds me a little bit of George Orwell, the way 
the Republicans cynically manipulate the rules around here. As he said: 
``All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.''
  So Republican amendments that create debt and deficit are exempt from 
the rules, and Democratic amendments to protect the west coast, which 
does not want this mandatory oil drilling, because it might forego some 
potential possible future revenues, are not made in order. This is not 
for real. This is not an honest process.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to realize how the 
GAO's and the OMB's facts are not inaccurate and also how rules that 
were waived for this bill have been waived for the same reason in prior 
pieces of legislation.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous 
question, I will offer an amendment to this rule that would allow the 
House to hold a vote on the Student Loan Relief Act. If Congress 
doesn't act by July 1, undergraduate students in this Nation, all over 
this Nation, will see a hike in their student loan interest rates.
  To discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the remarks by 
the gentleman from Florida that we would have an opportunity to vote on 
the student loan bill to make sure that we don't do what millions of 
American students and their families have asked us not to do, and that 
is, they don't want us to double their debt. But in less than 100 hours 
if we don't get the vote that Mr. Hastings is talking about, in less 
than 100 hours, millions of American college students may see their 
student debt increase because of the Republican obstructionism. It's 
unfortunate that it's come to this. This issue shouldn't be partisan. 
It's about doing the right thing on behalf of millions of students and 
their families all across the country.
  It's a simple choice. We can help students achieve an education, one 
that

[[Page 10421]]

they can afford, and the skills that they need to be successful, or we 
can put more hurdles in their way and increase the already skyrocketing 
debt burden that students absorb as they graduate from college.

                              {time}  1310

  It has been more than a year of ignoring this issue. A year ago, we 
were in this position, and a year ago, we voted to keep the student 
loan rate at 3.75 percent. Nothing has been done until recently, and 
then the Republicans came up with an idea that was really bad. It was 
worse than doubling the interest rates on July 1. It was more expensive 
to the students than doubling the interest rates. It's not a smart 
solution. It's a terrible solution--it's terrible for students; it's 
terrible for their families.
  After a year of ignoring this issue, the Republicans foisted this 
harmful idea onto the House floor, and when the Republican bill hit the 
floor, they refused to allow a vote on a rational plan, like the 
Courtney bill, that stops this doubling of the interest rates and 
allows this Congress to examine and develop a long-term solution as 
part of the Higher Education Reauthorization Act.
  Despite trumpeting that their plan was the same as President Obama's 
proposal, when the Democrats offered President Obama's actual plan, 
they blocked that vote, too. So they won't keep the interest rates from 
doubling, and they won't do a plan that they said is just like theirs. 
On July 1, those interest rates are going to double on millions of 
students as they start this school year in August and September.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. The time for obstruction has passed. 
It's time to keep the rates low and to work on a long-term solution. 
It's time to stop asking college students and their families to bear an 
unfair burden of paying down the Bush deficits.
  The Democrats have chosen to stand with the students and families who 
are trying to access the American Dream. We can do this. Millions of 
families and students have asked us: don't double their debt. Yet, on 
July 1, because of the Republican obstructionism, that's what's going 
to happen to these students. It's very unfortunate. It adds an 
additional $1,000 to the 4 years of college. We should not do that at 
this time, in this economy, for these students and families.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield myself 1 minute.
  I appreciate what has been said even though it has very little to do 
with the bills that we will be discussing in these next couple of 
weeks.
  Especially as a former teacher, I understand significantly what it 
does to student loans and situations. I understand significantly how 
now 5 years ago Congress passed legislation that cut out the FFEL 
Program, which actually helped kids in their being able to afford their 
college workability. We consolidated all of our efforts with a program, 
an idea, from the 1980s, which was a bad idea then and is a bad idea 
now.
  Unfortunately, this House has dealt with this issue. On May 23 of 
this year, we passed a bill that solves this problem, and we sent it 
over to the Senate. For some reason, I feel uncomfortable or at least 
tired of being held accountable for the Senate's inability to actually 
deal with legislation sent to them that solves problems and then have 
to take the responsibility back here. The House has dealt with this 
issue, and we did it in a responsible, reasonable way. The Senate has 
refused to.
  So often what we have found as gridlock here is not necessarily 
between Republicans and Democrats as we pass a whole lot of bipartisan 
bills on this floor. It's between the Senate and the House. I wish it 
were different and that we could compel the Senate to act responsibly, 
but the Senate has not and the House has.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/
2\ minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Loebsack).
  Mr. LOEBSACK. I do appreciate the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I rise to actually speak about an issue that I think we should be 
addressing today and at this very moment.
  With student loan interest rates set to rise in only 5 short days, 
the time to act is now. It is unacceptable that we have not yet brought 
up a bill for a vote that can be passed by both Chambers and signed 
into law.
  With tuition rising rapidly and with far too many families and 
students struggling to make ends meet, middle class families are 
finding it more and more difficult to pay for college. When I'm home 
each weekend in Iowa, I hear from countless students and parents who 
cannot understand why we can't seem to get this done.
  This should not be a partisan issue. We need to address student loan 
debt in the interest of our economy. We must prepare our students for 
the kind of good-paying middle class jobs that will drive our economy 
forward, and we must do so in a way that does not saddle them with a 
lifetime of debt, which prevents them from fully participating in the 
economy.
  I could not have gone to college and would not be where I am today 
without low-interest student loans and other financial assistance 
programs that were available to me. It's critical that we get this done 
now. I am willing to stay here and work until we get this done. We 
cannot allow the House to recess and leave our students in the dust to 
face this rate hike.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to a friend of mine, the distinguished gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, as the chart next to me clearly states, we 
are now 4 days and counting until, by law, the interest rate for the 
subsidized Stafford student loan program will double--from 3.4 percent 
to 6.8 percent. The real chart should probably be 3 days because that's 
how many legislative days the House and the Senate are in session. 
Incredibly, we are debating issues which hardly have the same time 
sensitivity and which clearly are tone deaf to what American families 
all over the country are really concerned about.
  There are 7.5 million college students who use the subsidized 
Stafford student loan program. They are going to see their rates 
double. The total gross cost in terms of added interest is about $4 
billion. This is at a time when student loan debt is $1.1 trillion--
higher than credit card debt, higher than car loan debt. Incredibly, 
this deadline is just being completely ignored by the majority despite 
the fact that millions of students are making life decisions as we 
speak as they begin to enroll for next fall's semester.
  The bill which the House majority passed on May 23 is a bill which 
tied rates on a variable basis to Treasury notes, which, by the way, 
have been going up like crazy over the last 3 weeks and which the 
Congressional Budget Office has now analyzed and told us will result in 
debt costs that will be worse than if Congress did nothing and allowed 
the rates to double to 6.8 percent.
  The solution is obvious. Extend the lower rate, 3.4 percent. My bill, 
H.R. 1595, which is the subject of the previous question, has 195 
signatories for a discharge petition. A substantial group of Members in 
the House is ready and poised to move. It did get 51 votes in the 
Senate. It did actually move in the Senate, and the President has said 
he will sign it. If there is any path forward for those 7.5 million 
students, it's H.R. 1595. Let's do it. Let's act. Let's turn this 
countdown clock off. Let's help America's young students afford and pay 
for a critical need for their future--higher education.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would inform my colleague 
from Utah that I have no further requests for time, and I would ask 
whether or not he has additional speakers.

[[Page 10422]]


  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Other than brilliant verbiage from myself, you've 
got it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I am looking forward to the brilliant 
verbiage.
  Following on from the previous discussion, Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment, which has been 
discussed, in the Record along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 8\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. 
I am tempted to take the 8\1/2\ minutes and, perhaps, not offer as much 
brilliant verbiage but at least add, without hyperbole, the continuing 
concern that all of us should have.
  I agree with my friend from Utah when he points to the fact that 
there has been legislation that has come out of the House of 
Representatives, regardless of who was in the majority, and that it has 
gone over to the other body and nothing has transpired. But when the 
American people look at Congress, they are not looking just at the 
House of Representatives or just at the United States Senate--it is all 
of us--and it is our responsibility here in the House, particularly as 
the body that has the Ways and Means Committee, which generates the 
financial circumstances of this country that ultimately is voted on.

                              {time}  1320

  It's our responsibility, in my judgment, to undertake to answer one 
simple question regarding this loan thing: Why is it that college 
students are going to be required to have loan obligations that raise 
their loans from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent when Bank X and Bank Y can 
borrow money from each other for little or nothing at all? That does 
not make any sense.
  We can't do these children this way in this country, and we have an 
absolute responsibility to all of them to give them the opportunities 
that many of us had. People here in this House that have come here by 
way of student loans and some of them have had those opportunities, why 
not give these children that chance?
  Mr. Speaker, the most common critiques of this Congress have been 
bipartisanship and dysfunction. This rule today for these three bills 
shows that the Speaker and majority leader are perfectly content with 
that characterization of their work. Congress doesn't have to be this 
way.
  It isn't always like this. It wasn't like this when I came here in 
1992. It was not like this for the greater portion of a decade after I 
came here in 1992. Instead of appointing budget conferees, instead of 
passing a farm bill in a bipartisan way, instead of fixing the pending 
student loan interest rate, instead of replacing the sequester that has 
been monstrously all over this Nation hindering our economic recovery 
and instead of preventing us from yet another game of chicken, which we 
will be doing sometime in the fall over the debt ceiling, we're 
considering three purely political bills that will only create more 
partisanship among us and might, I add, ain't going nowhere.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress can and must do better.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I appreciate the opportunity of being part of a debate that covered a 
smorgasbord of ideas. Let me just respond to several of those that have 
been presented in the last lead-up to the vote on this particular 
amendment.
  As I said before, I'm a teacher. I care greatly about education. I'm 
especially frustrated with the way Congress has passed or handled the 
student loan provision.
  Several years ago, while the Democrats were in control--I'm trying 
not to be too partisan, but they were in control--we changed the law 
that dealt with student loans to consolidate that authority within the 
Federal Government. By doing so, we crushed private-State partnership 
plans that were an excellent avenue for loans that students could use. 
They could get breaks depending on their repayment habits. It was a 
marvelous program, but it was stopped in an effort to try to 
consolidate everything here within Congress. Since that time, we have 
played silly games of brinksmanship that deal with what the rate should 
be and what the rate might be.
  We have a bill that this body passed on May 23 in plenty of time to 
extinguish this issue, plenty of time for the Senate to debate it, 
amend it, send it back to us, appoint the conference, go through 
regular process, if the Senate wished to do that. Instead, the result 
is the Senate has basically turned their back on the issue and said, 
We'll let it go over the cliff one more time.
  You see, it shouldn't have been that way. If we had not changed the 
policy back when we passed a bill in the previous leadership of this 
House, we wouldn't have had this problem in the first place. What this 
House tried to do is say this is a silly approach going into the 
future. Let's come up with a policy towards student loans. If we have 
to consolidate them, if the Federal Government has to have their 
control and grasp over the entire thing, we should do it in a way that 
provides some kind of flexibility and some kind of rationalization so 
it can ebb and flow in the future as the market requires it to do.
  We passed a bill not just that allowed them not to double, but we 
passed a bill here on this floor which solved the problem. The fact 
that the Senate does not wish to solve the problem is something that I 
find sad. But we solved the problem, and we did it in a timely fashion.
  The great speeches that I heard today--and they were very good and 
their verbiage was better than mine--should be given over in the Senate 
where it can do some good.
  I also want to talk about a couple of other issues that I've heard, 
that these particular bills in this rule would violate states rights' 
agreements, even though the issue at hand is only those waters and 
coastal waters that are a part of the Federal preserve and does not 
talk about State waters whatsoever.
  We talked about in H.R. 1613 a poison pill being inserted into that 
provision that exempts Dodd-Frank. Somehow I wish we could actually go 
back to the person who actually inserted that provision in there 
because it was Secretary Hillary Clinton. That's part of the 
negotiations we did as a country with the Mexican Government; and it's 
logical that it is in there because it gives some protection to U.S. 
companies that, if that language was not in there, could be forced 
either to violate Federal laws or violate foreign laws and face civil 
penalties or cease to operate in foreign countries.
  I can understand why the Secretary of State at the time did negotiate 
that portion that is in there. That's not the poison pill. That's 
simply what is in the negotiated settlement. All we're doing with this 
bill is enacting it, putting it into place, and allowing us to move 
forward with what has been simply negotiated on resource areas that 
straddle international lines.
  I'm also somewhat frustrated with the statement that we might as well 
use the leases that we currently have. I'm also frustrated because we 
have had a great deal of increase in production of oil and gas, and 
it's all happened on private and State lands.
  I happen to represent a State that has almost 70 percent of it 
controlled by the Federal Government. I have enormous amounts of 
resource potential in my State, but it is controlled by the Federal 
Government. So even though areas where private property and States have 
been able to increase the revenue to their States and increase the 
total amount of petroleum productions that we have, my State has seen 
the exact opposite.
  If you go onshore to the areas that are controlled by this 
administration, the Federal lands, the amount of parcels that have been 
offered since 2005

[[Page 10423]]

are down 88 percent. The amount of acres that are offered for 
development of resources are down 85 percent. And what is most sad is 
the amount of revenue that is produced both to the State and to the 
Federal Government from onshore development since 2005, which is down 
99 percent.
  A lease is simply not, as has been stated, the green light to start 
drilling. A release simply says you start the process. And part of the 
problem with the releases both onshore and offshore has been the 
inability of the Federal Government to do so in a reasonable fashion. 
On onshore lease development there is regulation that says it must be 
done in a 6-month period of time to move forward from the initial sale 
and to which the lease is then offered so the company can start its 
drilling process. Yet in a survey done by GAO, 91 percent of the time, 
that 6-month standard has not been met onshore.
  Part of H.R. 2231 is a reorganization of the administrative function 
that deals with how these leases are developed and how they proceed 
going forward. By taking one agency, which has had a very poor record 
and dividing it into three with specific responsibilities, we think we 
can streamline this process and make sure that what we are doing on the 
Outer Continental Shelf is far more effective than what we are doing on 
Federal lands onshore, where all we are having is stalling delays and a 
lack of production and a lack of revenue coming from them.
  It was once said to the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee 
that if he had a better idea, do it. In all due respect, he has a 
better idea. That better idea is the two bills before us right now, 
H.R. 2231, and the other bill, which is H.R. 1613. Those are good 
ideas. They will move us forward. They're the things we ought to do to 
prepare.
  I think it's a great rule that is allowing that and allowing the 
appropriation bill to come through in an open rule, allowing anyone who 
has an idea that he or she wishes to bring to the floor the opportunity 
to do so.
  With that, this is a fair rule. It deals with an appropriations 
process, as well as two bills that are good bills that will help 
people. Especially after yesterday's speech, we should have an energy 
policy in this country aimed at helping middle class Americans, not one 
that simply says, freeze in the dark, especially if you're poor. That's 
the best thing we are going to be able to do.

                              {time}  1330

  These bills move us forward. We should vote for them. With that, 
having failed at my effort to give you good verbiage, in which case I'm 
sorry you're holding the cane there, I hope you're using that only to 
navigate around this floor and it will not become a weapon in the 
future.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

     An Amendment to H. Res. 274 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 8. 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. 
     1595) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend the 
     reduced interest rate for Federal Direct Stafford Loans. 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 Education and 
     the Workforce. 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. 9. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 595 as specified in section 8 of this 
     resolution.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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. HASTINGS of Florida. 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 228, 
nays 194, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 289]

                               YEAS--228

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     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
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw

[[Page 10424]]


     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     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 (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)
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     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
     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
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--194

     Andrews
     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
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     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
     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)
     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, Sean
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     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
     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
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Clarke
     Fincher
     Johnson, E. B.
     Maloney, Carolyn
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McMorris Rodgers
     Nadler
     Neugebauer
     Sessions
     Smith (WA)
     Watt

                              {time}  1357

  Messrs. PERLMUTTER, HIGGINS, GENE GREEN of Texas, and VELA and Ms. 
DUCKWORTH changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Capito was allowed to speak out of 
order.)


                  Women's Congressional Softball Game

  Mrs. CAPITO. To my colleagues, tonight is a very exciting night for 
the women of the House, the women's softball team of the House--and the 
men of the House, and really all families across America--for our fifth 
annual women's softball team. Our game is tonight at 7 o'clock at 
Watkins Field.
  I am the cocaptain of the team with my esteemed colleague from 
Florida. And we have trouble agreeing on a lot of things, but I know 
everybody in this room today will want us to win because our opponents 
are the press.
  So I want to just briefly say thank you to everybody who's been 
involved in this. We've had a lot of great coaches and we've had a lot 
of outside help. We've had a lot of fun getting to know each other 
again and even better.
  I'd like to yield to my cocaptain who hatched this idea and have her 
talk a little bit about why we're doing this.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much to my cocaptain, the 
gentlelady from West Virginia, and to all of our sisters on the 
Congressional Women's Softball team.
  The gentlelady from West Virginia is absolutely right; we may not 
always agree in the boundaries and walls of this room, but I think all 
of us can agree that we want to defeat the common adversary--that is, 
the press corps.
  We have been out there for the last 2 months at 7 in the morning two 
or three times a week. None of us can believe that we actually all get 
out there at the crack of dawn to make sure that we can build our 
skills, build camaraderie, make sure that we come together around a 
true common purpose. We also thank our adversaries, whom we will defeat 
tonight when we take the field and make sure that we take the trophy 
back for the women Members.
  We've only won one out of the last four games, but the fifth time is 
a charm. This is the fifth annual game. It happens to coincide with my 
own 5-year anniversary of being a survivor of breast cancer. And the 
importance of this game is really that we all are focused on raising 
money for an incredible charity, the Young Survival Coalition. We are 
headed for a record-breaking fundraising year.
  I want to thank the majority whip in particular for making sure that 
the schedule accommodated everybody coming to the game. This is going 
to be a fun family event. Bring your kids. We have face painting and a 
fun zone and all kinds of food and a great time. We have already 
presold more than 1,000 tickets before we even get to the door.
  So thank you so much. Come cheer on the women Members tonight at 7 
o'clock, Watkins Recreation Center, 12th and D Southeast. Take the 
Eastern Market or Potomac Avenue Metro.
  On to victory for the Congressional Women's Softball team.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will 
continue.
  There was no objection.
  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.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235, 
nays 187, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 290]

                               YEAS--235

     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

[[Page 10425]]


     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
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     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)
     Grayson
     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 (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)
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     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
     Velazquez
     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--187

     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
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     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
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     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)
     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, Sean
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     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
     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
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Clarke
     Fincher
     Johnson, E. B.
     Maloney, Carolyn
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     Nadler
     Neugebauer
     Smith (WA)
     Watt

                              {time}  1409

  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.


                          Personal Explanation

  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 289 on Ordering 
the Previous Question, H. Res. 274, A resolution providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 1613--Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary 
Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act, H.R. 2231--Offshore Energy 
and Jobs Act, and H.R. 2410--Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014, I 
am not recorded because I was absent due to a death in the family. Had 
I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 290 on Agreeing to the Resolution, H. 
Res. 274, A resolution providing for the consideration of H.R. 1613--
Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements 
Authorization Act, H.R. 2231--Offshore Energy and Jobs Act, and H.R. 
2410--Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014, I am not recorded because I 
was absent due to a death in the family. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________