[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11199-11213]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2014


                             General Leave

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on further consideration of 
H.R. 2609, and that I may include tabular material on the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 288 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2609.
  Will the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding) kindly take the 
chair.

                              {time}  1235


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2609) making appropriations for energy and water 
development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2014, and for other purposes, with Mr. Holding (Acting Chair) in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, 
July 9, 2013, a request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus) had been postponed and the bill 
had been read through page 60, line 12.


                Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Burgess

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used--
       (1) to implement or enforce section 430.32(x) of title 10, 
     Code of Federal Regulations; or
       (2) to implement or enforce the standards established by 
     the tables contained in section 325(i)(1)(B) of the Energy 
     Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(B)) with 
     respect to BPAR incandescent reflector lamps, BR incandescent 
     reflector lamps, and ER incandescent reflector lamps.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, in this House, in 2007, a bill was passed 
called the Energy Independence and Security Act. One of the features of 
this bill was to take away consumer choice when deciding which light 
bulbs our constituents could use in their own homes. Since that time, I 
have heard from literally tens of thousands of people on the inequities 
of this provision. Mr. Chairman, they're right.
  While the government has passed energy-efficiency standards in other 
realms over the years, they have never moved so far and lowered 
standards so drastically to a point where at this date, over 5 years, 
the technology is still years off in making light bulbs that are 
compliant with the 2007 law and at a price point that the average 
American can afford.
  Last year, light bulb companies talked about their new 2007 law-
compliant bulbs that are available now, but they're available at price 
points of $20, $30, $40, and $50 each bulb.
  Opponents to my amendment will claim that the 2007 language does not 
ban the incandescent bulb. This is true. It bans the sale of the 100-
watt, the 60-watt, and the 45-watt bulbs. The replacement bulbs are far 
from economically efficient, even if they are energy efficient. A 
family living paycheck to paycheck can't afford to replace every bulb 
in their house at $25 a bulb, even if those bulbs will last 20 years.
  This Congress should be on the side of the consumer and on the side 
of consumer choice. If the new energy-efficient light bulbs save money 
and if they're better for the environment, we should trust our 
constituents to make the choice on their own toward these bulbs. Let 
the market decide. We should not be forcing these light bulbs on the 
American people. The bottom line is the Federal Government has no 
business taking away the freedom of choice from Americans as to what 
type of light bulbs to use in their homes.
  The columnist, George Will, speaking on a television program back in 
December of 2007, describing the efforts of the then-110th Congress, 
was fairly disparaging. He pointed out that Congress had not done much 
work in the calendar year 2007. He went on to say that the sole 
functions of the Federal Government are to defend the borders and 
deliver the mail, but all the Congress had managed to do was ban the 
incandescent bulb.
  This exact amendment was passed the past 2 years by voice vote and 
both times was included in the legislation signed into law by President 
Obama. It allows consumers to continue to have a choice and a say as to 
what they put in their homes. It's common sense. Let's give some relief 
to American families at least until replacement light bulbs can be 
marketed at prices that don't break the bank.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the very 
distinguished Member's amendment--Dr. Burgess--

[[Page 11200]]

and simply say that his amendment would prohibit the Department of 
Energy from promulgating light bulb efficiency standards.
  It is a common misunderstanding that there is some type of ban on the 
incandescent light bulb that effectively requires people to have the 
limited choice of only a compact fluorescent bulb. This is simply not 
true. Regulations require only that bulbs be more efficient.
  So this debate really isn't about choice--or energy efficiency for 
that matter. It's about endangering American jobs, specifically 
American manufacturing jobs. Given that American manufacturers have 
committed to following the law regardless of whether or not it is 
enforced, the only benefit of this ill-informed rider is to allow 
foreign manufacturers who may not feel a similar obligation to import 
noncompliant light bulbs that will not only harm the investments made 
by U.S. companies, but place at risk the U.S. manufacturing jobs 
associated with making compliant bulbs.
  Further, it is the equivalent of a $100 tax on every American 
family--that's $16 billion across our Nation--through increased energy 
costs.
  The performance standards for light bulbs were established in the 
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. At that time, the bill 
enjoyed strong bipartisan support of both Republicans and Democrats. 
Ninety-five House Republicans voted for final passage, and the bill was 
signed into law by President Bush.
  As far as I'm aware, the issues that inspired this standard have not 
changed and, I would argue, have gotten worse. Families are struggling 
every day to meet rising energy bills, and there are real savings to be 
had by moving to more efficient light bulbs.
  Further, while claiming that the incandescent bulb is dead makes for 
a great sound bite, it just doesn't reflect reality. As a result of the 
2007 law, manufacturers already are making a variety of new energy-
saving bulbs for homes, including more efficient incandescent bulbs. 
These bulbs look like and turn on like the bulbs we have been using for 
decades, but are upwards of 28 to 33 percent more efficient. And that's 
good for everyone. This is amazing progress in a very short time, 
considering that previously the basic technology of incandescent bulbs 
had not changed substantially since they were first introduced over 125 
years ago.
  Philips, GE, and Sylvania are among those currently manufacturing 
efficient incandescent bulbs. One is making them entirely within the 
United States, and the others are manufacturing the key components in 
their U.S. factories.
  So I would urge my colleagues to please see the light and oppose this 
amendment. And my dear colleague, Dr. Burgess, knows that, despite the 
fact that we disagree on this issue, I have the highest respect for his 
service in this Congress to the people of Texas.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  amendment no. 29 offered by ms. bass

  Ms. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce, with respect to 
     hydraulic fracturing operations in the Inglewood Oil Field--
       (1) the exclusion in section 1421(d)(1)(B) of the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h(d)(1)(B));
       (2) section 261.4(b)(5) of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations; or
       (3) the limitation in section 402(l)(2) of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342(l)(2)).

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to introduce a straightforward and 
narrow amendment that restricts Federal resources from supporting 
hydraulic fracturing in the Baldwin Hills/Inglewood Oil Field, the 
largest urban oilfield in the United States.
  The urban location of the Inglewood Oil Field, as well as the area's 
susceptibility to earthquakes, requires unique health and safety 
considerations and precautions. The Inglewood Oil Field is nearly 90 
years old, a 1,000-acre oilfield with over 350 oil wells in the center 
of Los Angeles. It is surrounded by thousands of homes, schools, and 
parks. In fact, 300,000 residents of Los Angeles, Baldwin Hills, Ladera 
Heights, Culver City, and Inglewood live and work directly around the 
field. Additionally, the oilfield borders the Kenny Hahn State 
Recreation Area, a park that welcomes thousands of families and 
visitors each year. Not only is the area around the Inglewood Oil Field 
densely populated; it also sits on the Newport-Inglewood fault, making 
it very vulnerable to severe earthquakes.
  Clearly, the urban landscape and history of seismic activity in this 
area necessitates stringent health and safety reviews prior to any new 
oil and gas extraction. However, hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is 
occurring in the Inglewood Oil Field without proper regulation or even 
a comprehensive study of its safety and impact.
  During my time in the California State Assembly, and since coming to 
Congress, I have heard numerous times directly from my constituents 
that they are fearful about the environmental health and seismic 
effects of fracturing in the Inglewood Oil Field and the impact it will 
have on their families and communities. They have discussed with me 
several concerns about fracking in the oilfield, like the impact on 
ground and drinking water safety, toxic chemical dispersion into the 
soil and air, and disruption of the Newport-Inglewood fault, which 
could lead to major earthquakes or landslides.
  In fact, environmental conservation and health community leaders, 
like Lark Galloway Gilliam, Jim Lamm, and Mary Anne Greene, a member of 
the Community Advisory Council, have continually advocated for 
increased assessment and regulation of fracking in the Inglewood Oil 
Field.

                              {time}  1245

  In addition, Tom Camarella from Culver City has also expressed these 
concerns, and I believe these concerns are justified.
  The people of Los Angeles and Culver City are entitled to an 
extensive long-term and transparent assessment of fracking operations 
at the oilfields. Ensuring the health and safety of our constituents 
should be a top priority.
  That is why I rise today to offer this amendment, which will ensure 
that no Federal funds in this bill will be used to implement, 
administer, or enforce fracking in the Inglewood Oil Field for the 
coming fiscal year. This is a small step in the greater fracking 
debate, but I am proud to amplify the concerns of my community with 
this amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentlewoman's 
amendment.
  The amendment would prohibit, as she said, hydraulic fracking 
operations or fracking within the Inglewood Oil Field in Los Angeles.
  I appreciate my colleague's passion for this particular issue and 
obviously her desire to protect her constituents, but the Energy and 
Water appropriations bill is not the proper place for such a unique 
prohibition on fracking.
  Inglewood Oil Field is not Federal land nor does the Department of 
Energy's Office of Fossil Energy have any current projects that involve 
Inglewood in its natural gas portfolio. Furthermore, fracking 
activities are currently regulated both locally and by her own State of 
California.
  This is a complex authorizing issue, but we are still waiting to hear 
from the Department's lawyers on what effect, if any, this language 
would actually have in the fiscal year 2014. Therefore, I must oppose 
her amendment and urge other Members to do the same.

[[Page 11201]]

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. BASS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Meadows

  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to pay the salary of individuals appointed to their 
     current position through, or to otherwise carry out, 
     paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 5503(a) of title 5, 
     United States Code.

  Mr. MEADOWS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to waive the reading of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a simple and 
straightforward amendment. It prohibits the use of funds for the 
payment of salaries to Presidential recess appointees until they are 
formally confirmed by the Senate.
  In 1863, a law was passed that barred unconfirmed recess appointees 
from being paid. That law stayed on the books until 1940. However, over 
time, a number of broad exceptions were made that gradually eliminated 
the original intent of that law and rendered the prohibition useless. 
This amendment reapplies the original intent of that law to further 
reassert the Senate's authority in the confirmation process and prevent 
taxpayers from having to pay salaries of unconfirmed Presidential 
appointees.
  Recent decades have seen a constant erosion of congressional powers 
in deference to the executive. The Senate is required to confirm 
Presidential appointments for a reason. It is a check on the executive 
powers. This amendment is an opportunity to reempower that check by 
disincentivizing recess appointments except in cases where they are 
truly needed.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that 
will help stop Congress from taking the Corps of Engineers back to the 
1980s.
  In 2007, Congress passed legislation requiring the Army Corps of 
Engineers to update its principles and guidelines, the P&G. These are 
used by the Corps in formulating, evaluating, and implementing water 
resource projects. This is something I've been involved with since I 
first came to Congress 17 years ago. I served on the Water Resources 
Subcommittee, and discovered that the Corps was trapped in time.
  This update was critical in that these have not been updated since 
1983. If you understand how the Federal Government operates, for 
something that was approved in 1983, they were probably in the works in 
the early seventies.
  Earlier this year, the Council on Environmental Quality finally 
released an updated P&G that lays out broad principles to guide water 
investment as well as draft interagency guidelines for implementing the 
principles and requirements. These new P&G were developed over the last 
6 years by Federal agencies and they incorporated extensive comments 
from the public, as well as the National Academy of Sciences.
  The modernized P&G will help accelerate project approval, reduce 
costs, and support water infrastructure projects with the greatest 
economic and community benefits. They will allow for better 
consideration of long-term benefits, provide more flexibility for local 
communities, and promote more transparency in the Federal 
decisionmaking process.
  Unfortunately, there appears to be language in the committee report 
accompanying this legislation that would prevent the Corps from 
implementing them. The report states:
  The Corps shall continue to use the document dated March 10, 1983, 
and entitled, ``Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines 
for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies,'' during 
the fiscal year period covered by the Energy and Water Development Act 
for 2014.
  Does it make any sense at all to take work that has been in the 
process for years and tell an agency, You can't update your planning 
documents, prevent you from using updated resources?
  During the floor debate on this issue in 2007, I indicated that I was 
embarrassed that the Corps was operating under guidance from a quarter 
century ago; now they are 30 years old. These principles and guidelines 
are older than most of our staff.
  In 1983, Ronald Reagan was in his first term, Michael Jackson 
moonwalked for the first time, and Microsoft Word was first released. 
Think about the advancements in science, economics, and flood 
management, not to mention our environmental consciousness, all that 
have happened since 1983. That's what led the National Academy of 
Sciences, in the year 2000, to conclude that these needed to be 
``revised to better reflect contemporary management paradigms; 
analytical methods; legislative directives; and social, economic, and 
political realities.'' It is even more true today than it was 13 years 
ago.
  This issue is not just about a bureaucratic process for economists 
and scientists. These projects have significant impact on the ground.
  In 2007, I highlighted the problems from an organization called 
Levees.org, a nonpartisan grassroots group founded after Katrina. The 
group's mission was to help educate the people of New Orleans about 
what happened in Katrina and how to move forward. They supported the 
amendment at that time because they know this issue is a matter of life 
and death, to be able to have the Corps use the best information, the 
best technology, and do the best job. Relying on principles and 
guidelines that are a quarter-century old is not our very best. Over a 
third of a century is not our very best.
  I can comprehend no reason why Congress would require the Corps to 
continue to rely on outdated documents and not take advantage of the 
work, the research, and the progress that's been made by people in the 
administration, in the Corps of Engineers, and the scientific 
community.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not going to offer the amendment because I truly 
believe that we ought to be able to understand with the committee 
what's going on, understand the benefits that led Congress to embed 
this in the law in the first place. I would look forward to having a 
conversation with my good friend, the chair of the subcommittee, and 
the ranking member to see if we can't resolve this for the benefit of 
the public.
  Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Scalise

  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used within the borders of the State of Louisiana by the 
     Mississippi Valley Division or the Southwestern Division of 
     the Army Corps of Engineers or any district of the Corps 
     within such divisions to implement or enforce the mitigation 
     methodology, referred to as the ``Modified Charleston 
     Method''.


[[Page 11202]]

  Mr. SCALISE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present 
this amendment that deals with the Corps of Engineers' new program that 
was put in place 2 years ago, specifically in the New Orleans district, 
called the Modified Charleston Method.
  The Corps changed the usual and normal method for mitigation. On any 
kind of mitigation that's done on wetlands throughout the country, you 
have to mitigate if you are going to do development. Everybody 
understands that. Everybody has worked with that over the years.
  Two years ago, the Corps changed, specifically for the New Orleans 
district, that process and literally put in place a process that has 
made it very unworkable to do a lot of our flood protection projects 
and economic development projects.
  This amendment, by the way, is identical to language that we passed 
in the same appropriations bill last year, so the House has already 
gone on record saying that this is an unworkable plan by the Corps of 
Engineers. This new MCM method, as it is being referred to, has 
literally shut down many flood protection projects and economic 
development projects in south Louisiana.
  What we have been saying to the Corps of Engineers is let's work 
together on putting reasonable rules in place. This rule is unworkable, 
so much so that the Corps didn't even use these rules when they were 
doing their own projects. Americans understand that when government 
tries to impose rules on the people and yet doesn't even follow those 
same rules themselves, it shows there is a problem. Yet that's what is 
happening in this case.
  All we are saying is everybody understands we need to do mitigation, 
but when the Corps comes out with these new rules that triple, in many 
cases, the amount of mitigation that needs to be done to a point where 
it is unworkable--as an example, just last year, Corps permit 
applications for development projects were down by 33 percent because 
they literally took off the table the ability to do any kind of 
development in many areas of south Louisiana--that's not how rules and 
regulations are supposed to work. You ought to be working with local 
communities and not saying you can't even protect yourself from 
flooding. Literally, if you look at the wetlands rules, they are 
preventing us from restoring wetlands with these rules on wetlands. It 
doesn't make sense. It is something that's unworkable.
  This amendment addresses this problem and says, if the Corps can't 
move forward with the Modified Charleston Method, then let's go back to 
the table and put some rules in place that actually make sense, put 
some commonsense rules in place.
  I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support my colleague from 
Louisiana's amendment.
  Not to belabor the point, but just in the last 11 months, mitigation 
costs in the New Orleans district for the Corps of Engineers and 
projects related to this have increased right at $11 million.

                              {time}  1300

  It affects all types of projects, and I'll just give you a few 
examples:
  One is a pipeline because we're responding to an increased need for 
natural gas transportation as our Louisiana oil refineries expand. One 
is a grocery store that provides fresh food, especially in our food 
deserts. Another one is the expansion of a 100-acre commercial park in 
St. Tammany Parish to create jobs and new office space. The last is a 
St. Tammany Parish drainage project, which would help Louisiana with 
its flood protection and protect our community.
  So this is a matter that is of vital importance. We are not 
diminishing the need for mitigation or underestimating its importance. 
What we are trying to say is that it should be reasonable and that the 
method that we had before we moved to the Modified Charleston Method 
was a good method, but we need to make sure that the Modified 
Charleston does not hamper our growth in Louisiana and prohibit us from 
protecting our citizens and our residents from future damage caused by 
storms or prohibit us from prospering from economic development at the 
same time.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I rise in opposition to these very able gentlemen's 
amendment. While I have some sympathy for this issue--and it's not a 
new one to this bill--I believe that more consistency should be brought 
to the way we evaluate wetland impacts, not less, as this amendment 
would ensure.
  The Charleston Method has been utilized for over two decades in 
various Corps districts, and it is a quick and inexpensive and 
consistent methodology for use by the regulated public and the Corps. 
In 2006 and 2007, the New Orleans district worked with its Federal and 
State partners to modify the Charleston Method so that it better 
reflected the unique conditions found in south Louisiana, resulting in 
the Modified Charleston Method that our colleagues have suggested.
  The use of this method is a longstanding one in many Corps districts. 
Many regulatory customers use the tool to assess their potential 
mitigation requirements for their impacts as well as credits required 
at mitigation banks. This transparency in Corps mitigation requirements 
has helped the applicant prepare a complete application package and 
determine mitigation costs up front--importantly, costs up front--costs 
often that are borne by the Federal taxpayer.
  The suspension of the use of the Charleston Method in Corps districts 
would require that any pending permit application, under section 404 of 
the Clean Water Act, and pending mitigation banks, would need to be 
reevaluated using a different assessment tool or methodology, or, in 
the absence of such a methodology, use the best professional judgment 
to determine appropriate mitigation requirements for impacts and for 
available credits in mitigation banks. All approved mitigation banks 
with available credits that were determined by the process would be 
temporarily closed until a new methodology could be developed and the 
banks' credits converted to the credit system of the new methodology.
  These banks were established utilizing the credit system of the 
Charleston Method, and until a similar credit system can be determined 
for proposed impact sites, it would not be possible to correlate the 
new requirements in the old credit system.
  So we are into the weeds on this one, and we know that the difficulty 
at the edges--where the water meets the land, where we have very severe 
coastal conditions that occur as a result of weather changes and so 
forth--do require us to be more land planning conscious. I've seen the 
work that the Corps has done in Louisiana, and I appreciate the 
gentlemen's concern about their home State. I think to try to change 
this in this bill is probably not wise policy, and we know the costs of 
these damaged areas to the taxpayers of the United States. With coastal 
storms being what they are, we anticipate greater coastal activity, and 
I think that wiser planning is better than moving to a process that, I 
think, is less rigorous.
  So, on those bases, I oppose the gentlemen's amendment, but I do 
thank them very much for their deep service to their State, to their 
region, which has been so impacted by changes in our environment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 11203]]

  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Lynch

  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for 
     ``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Fossil Energy 
     Research and Development'', and increasing the amount made 
     available for ``Corps of Engineers-Civil--Department of the 
     Army--Corps of Engineers-Civil--Construction'', by 
     $20,000,000.

  Mr. LYNCH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LYNCH. First of all, I want to thank the chairman, the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, and also Ms. Kaptur from Ohio, 
the ranking member, for the great work they've done.
  In spite of the fact that many Members are coming up with refining 
amendments, I do want to acknowledge the great work they've done, for 
example, on the manufacturing piece that's in this bill as well as the 
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, which has been amply funded and is so 
important to a lot of the coastal communities. Myself representing the 
Port of Boston and a large swath of the South Shore of Massachusetts--
some beautiful cities and towns--I do appreciate the work that they've 
done. However, there does appear to be a gap in funding with respect to 
the Army Corps of Engineers.
  The purpose of my amendment would be to increase funding to the 
Construction account for the Army Corps of Engineers by $20 million. 
This increase would, of course, be offset by decreasing the Fossil Fuel 
Research account by a corresponding amount.
  I am fortunate to represent a district that relies heavily and 
benefits greatly from the proximity to the coast, and I have wonderful, 
historic, beautiful towns and cities, like Quincy, Weymouth, Hull, 
Cohasset, Hingham, and Scituate, that, as I say, are benefiting greatly 
because they're on the coast. They house commercial fishing fleets and 
host wonderful beaches and marinas, and they are vital components of 
our Statewide economy and regional economy. But while these benefits 
are there, they are also exposed to the most recent violent coastal 
storms that have become increasingly devastating in recent years.
  Like many of my colleagues, I have seen firsthand the devastating 
effects that these much more intense storms have had on our 
communities--beaches erode, and roadways and bridges get washed away. 
In our case, we have not been hit as hard as places like the district 
of the gentleman from Louisiana or New Jersey or New York with the 
Superstorm Sandy effects, but much of our seawall infrastructure and 
protection for our beaches have been damaged considerably. We've 
benefited from prior Congresses that have made sure that the funding 
and the maintenance have been there to preserve that protection, and we 
are at that point again.
  It seems like we are having 100-year storms every 3 or 4 years now in 
my district, and I'm sure it's like that in a lot of places across the 
country. I think it's entirely appropriate that we balance this out, 
that we rebalance the priorities here, by putting $20 million into the 
Construction account for the Army Corps of Engineers while we are 
removing a corresponding amount from the Fossil Fuel Research account. 
I think that most of us realize that the impacts of climate change are 
at least increasing the intensity of the storms that we've seen in 
recent years, and we need to provide the Army Corps of Engineers in our 
communities with the resources they need to protect against these 
natural disasters. I believe my offset does that in a fitting way.
  Like President Obama, I think we need an all-of-the-above energy 
policy. I'm not here today to debate the cause of global warming or of 
climate change, but temperatures and sea levels are rising, and fossil 
fuel consumption is a contributing factor. So, as long as we are forced 
to rely on fossil fuels, we need to also deal with the fallout from our 
own energy policies. We need to protect our coastal communities from 
future devastation.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's 
amendment.
  I share the gentleman's support for smart investments in our Nation's 
water resources infrastructure, though. In fact, the Army Corps of 
Engineers has always been one of the top priorities in our Energy and 
Water bill.
  Total program level funding is $50 million above the budget request 
and almost $150 million above the post-sequester level. There is very 
strong Member interest in the harbor maintenance activities, and most 
of these additional funds were included in the Operation and 
Maintenance account. Even so, construction funding is less than 1 
percent below the President's budget.
  On the other hand, the bill already reduces funding for fossil energy 
by $84 million below the fiscal year 2013 level. That's a 16 percent 
reduction. Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, provide 
for 82 percent of our Nation's energy needs, and we will need to 
continue to use these valuable energy resources for generations to 
come. Research conducted within this program ensures we use our 
Nation's fossil fuel resources well and as cleanly as possible. In 
fact, if we increased the efficiency of our fossil energy plants by 
just 1 percent, we could power an additional 2 million households 
without using a single additional pound of fuel from the ground.
  We simply cannot take a further reduction to this account, and I urge 
my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.
  Congressman Lynch, I think, has really thought through this proposal 
very well. His is a modest amendment. Actually, the bill that we are 
considering is $29,425,000 above the budget request of the 
administration, so he is merely conforming his amendment to the initial 
request.
  For the record, we anticipate that the Department will with this 
change spend approximately $420 million this year for fossil energy 
research and development.
  I agree with my esteemed colleague from New Jersey about the 
importance of natural gas, as Ohio is a State that has benefited deeply 
from that. A lot of that technology is going very well, and the 
companies are making significant profits. They can invest some of that 
in their own advanced development now. Then with the additional 
drilling for oil on public lands and so forth, we are producing more 
than we have in modern history over the last several years.
  So I think it's worthy to transfer some of these dollars to the 
Corps. We have over $60 billion worth of Corps projects that are backed 
up, and in terms of job creation, that just rings home across this 
country because those Corps dollars will be put to work in projects 
that have been backed up from coast to coast.
  I now yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I 
appreciate her gracious remarks.
  I do want to point out, though, that, since 2010, we've cut $688 
million from this account. Now, we all have great

[[Page 11204]]

respect and admiration for the Army Corps of Engineers, but having cut 
$688 million since 2010 has been reducing their ability to prioritize 
those projects around the country that need to be worked on. Some of 
those are Democratic districts, and some of those are Republican 
districts. That's not what this is about. This is about our 
infrastructure. So a $688 million cut since 2010 is a serious 
obstruction for them to do their job, and that's all I'm asking here.
  I'm asking that we recognize our responsibility and our stewardship 
of protecting seawalls and ports and marinas, whether they're on the 
Great Lakes or whether they're on the Atlantic or Pacific coast. I am 
just asking that we step up and meet our responsibility in a meaningful 
way.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman, and I, evidently, very strongly 
support his amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts will be 
postponed.

                              {time}  1315


                  Amendment Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Energy to finalize, implement, 
     or enforce the proposed rule entitled ``Energy Conservation 
     Standards Ceiling Fans and Ceiling Fan Light Kits'' and 
     identified by regulation identification number 1904-AC87.

  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, as I begin to talk about this amendment 
that Mr. Rokita and I have worked on and bring to you today, I want to 
pause and take just a moment and commend our appropriators and the 
chairman. He is accustomed to seeing me come down and try to cut 1 
percent, 5 percent more out of the budget, but the appropriators this 
year have done that work for us.
  This bill before us today totals $30.426 billion, which is $2.9 
billion below last year's level, $700 billion below the sequester 
level, and $4 billion below the President's request. Indeed, it's below 
the pre-Pelosi budget, which was $31.5 billion.
  As my former colleague in the Tennessee State Senate used to say--Tim 
Burchett, now mayor of Knoxville--he would quote Tennessee author Alex 
Haley, who said ``find the good, and praise it.'' So I praise them for 
doing these cuts on the front end, and I focus my attention on the 
issue we have with ceiling fans and this administration's interest in 
overregulating ceiling fans.
  As many of my colleagues know, ceiling fans and ceiling fan light 
kits already face existing regulations set in place by the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005. These provisions burden ceiling fan manufacturers 
with ineffective mandates. However, despite the current mandates, the 
Department of Energy is looking to require additional mandates that 
will impact everything such as the angle of the blade, shape, airflow, 
light kits. They are determined to redesign the American fan and have 
issued a 101-page rulemaking framework document which evaluates the 
potential energy savings that new regulations would supposedly provide.
  We've already seen the Federal Government stretch their regulatory 
tentacles into our homes and determine what kind of light bulbs we have 
to use. Now they're coming after our ceiling fans. It is a sad state of 
affairs when even our ceiling fans aren't safe from this 
administration. Enough is enough.
  These new regulations being considered by DOE will significantly 
impair the ability of ceiling fan manufacturers like Hunter Fans in 
Memphis to produce reasonably priced, highly decorative fans. They will 
also force our constituents to use less energy-efficient mechanisms to 
cool their homes, using more energy. It is imperative that we join 
together and prohibit any funding in this bill from being used by DOE 
to finalize, implement, or enforce new regulations on ceiling fans.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
amendment offered by my friend, the gentlelady from Tennessee. Like 
her, I also want to thank the appropriators.
  As a member of the Budget Committee, our responsibility is to issue 
top-line numbers that we stay within in order to bring down the deficit 
and ultimately address the towering debt that we're facing as a country 
not only today, but the even worse debt we're going to be facing given 
the current trend that we're on in the future.
  Mr. Chair, remember when we were told to keep our tires properly 
inflated and to get a regular tune-up to save fuel? Some people 
snickered and commented, ``Is this an energy policy?'' At least those 
ideas actually saved energy and actually saved cost, albeit a drop in 
the bucket. But now, in one of its latest efforts, along comes the 
Department of Energy and proposes a regulation to impose destructive 
and unnecessary energy-efficiency standards for ceiling fans. And like 
much of their agenda, it is completely counterproductive. It's another 
example of Big Government run amok. It's an example of the complete 
disregard bureaucrats have for the practical implications of the 
regulations that they issue.
  The Department of Energy contends that a certain amount of energy 
would be saved by requiring greater efficiency from ceiling fans, as 
the gentlelady mentioned and explained. Of course, that ignores the 
fact that ceiling fans are already far more energy efficient than other 
cooling devices like air-conditioners. Recently, General Electric 
published an article stating that an average electric central air-
conditioner consumes 5,000 watts of electricity during operation. By 
contrast, a ceiling fan consumes as little as just 30 watts when 
operating under similar conditions. That's over 165 times less 
electricity than consumed by your typical central air-conditioning 
system.
  The proposed ceiling fan regulations would increase the cost of 
ceiling fans and reduce the manufacturer's ability to produce 
aesthetically pleasing devices marketable to people like us, the 
consumers. As a result, energy savings from these efficiency standards 
would not outweigh the increased costs of energy consumption brought 
about by the consumers foregoing ceiling fans and shifting to high-
energy consumption devices and increased usage of existing devices.
  The Department of Energy's proposed regulations on ceiling fans are 
absolutely counterproductive. They will encourage more energy 
consumption, they will reduce consumer choice and they have the 
potential to destroy jobs, including in Indiana.
  Americans need an energy policy to unleash our economy, not 
economically destructive dictates from Washington bureaucrats. This is 
yet another example of this administration double-dipping in the 
pockets of Americans, using taxpayer dollars to raise prices on 
consumers.
  As such, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I rise in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment and 
wish to point out to our colleagues that this amendment will prohibit 
any funds made available by the act from being used by the Department 
of Energy to finalize, implement, or enforce the proposed rule 
entitled, ``Standards, Ceiling Fans and Ceiling Fan Light Kits'' and 
identified by regulation identification number 1904-AC87.

[[Page 11205]]

  The Department of Energy is initiating the rulemaking and data 
collection process to consider amending the energy conservation 
standards for ceiling fans and ceiling fan light kits. Making ceiling 
fans more efficient would potentially reduce carbon output by 22 
million metric tons. This amendment would erode the Department of 
Energy's effort to curb carbon emissions and save consumers money on 
their electric bills. The Department estimates that the higher 
standards for ceiling fans will result in $4.3 billion in undiscounted 
energy bill savings through 2030.
  Also, I would be remiss if I did not point out that these amendments 
seek to undercut the administration's rulemaking authority given to it 
by Congress. Speaker after speaker on the other side of the aisle 
criticized this administration for not undertaking rulemaking on other 
issues and instead issuing guidance. Now we have rulemaking that allows 
for public comment, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
are still not satisfied.
  The Department is following its responsibility under the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005 to regulate ceiling fan energy usage. And you know 
what? It's not a bad idea. We actually own ceiling fans in our family. 
What's interesting about them is, if you have two or three speeds on 
them, the first speed, which is supposed to be the low speed, is more 
than we want, and it's very hard to get these fans demonstrated in the 
showroom sometimes. If you want to be a responsible consumer, I think 
it would be really helpful to the buying public to have standards, to 
be able to have labeling, to know what you're buying.
  This is an important market. I would guess it's one that's growing in 
our economy. But I think it's really important to have this kind of 
effort. The industry will be able to comment. That's what rulemaking is 
all about. We can work with consumers. Consumers like us can write in. 
We can make our comments. Overall, we get a better product and we get 
one that's more energy efficient.
  I know that there's a Hunter Fan Company located in Memphis, 
Tennessee, so I imagine the gentlelady may be speaking on their behalf. 
That's okay. That's what we're all here for. But the consumers out 
there also have a right to try to buy the most energy-efficient 
product.
  The fan that we bought, the light is too bright in the ceiling. And I 
don't know if you've ever tried to install one of those things. It's 
not so easy to get that off and to put the different bulbs in and all. 
As I think it's an industry that is growing and improving, I would 
think they could use a little bit of help.
  This amendment is anti-consumer. I think it should be defeated, but I 
admire the gentlelady for bringing it to the floor and the gentleman 
who supported her. I think working together we can all make it a little 
bit better for the environment, for consumers, and for the company. 
They will sell more fans, and people will have more confidence in their 
product.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Higgins

  Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to relocate or consolidate general and administrative 
     functions, personnel, or resources of the Buffalo and Chicago 
     Districts of the Corps of Engineers Great Lakes and Ohio 
     River Division.

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan amendment seeks to stop a 
flawed plan that would endanger crucial Army Corps projects in the 
Great Lakes region.
  The Army Corps of Engineers' Great Lakes and Ohio River Division is 
attempting to move key functions performed in Buffalo and Chicago 
regions out of their respective States.
  This is unacceptable.
  When it comes to protecting the safety, health, and future of our 
waterways, there is no substitute for having a team of qualified people 
on the ground. Taking key staff out of western New York will only 
hinder the delivery of high-impact projects already in progress. And 
any plan to turn the Buffalo and Chicago districts into mere satellite 
offices is a wrongheaded decision to divest in our Great Lakes.
  In my community alone, the Army Corps is overseeing a $44 million 
restoration of the Buffalo River and $359 million restoration of the 
former Linde site in Tonawanda, among dozens of other projects.
  The Buffalo district overseas 38,000 square miles from Massena, New 
York, to Toledo, Ohio--planning, constructing, and operating water 
projects to reduce floods, maintain navigation, protect the shoreline, 
and support water quality efforts. Failure to see these projects 
through to completion would not only harm western New York, but delays 
and cost overruns would impact the bottom line of the Army Corps.
  Mr. Chairman, the Great Lakes system moves more than 160 million tons 
of cargo a year, supports 227,000 jobs, and contributes $33.5 billion 
to the economy annually. As an engine of economic activity and valuable 
natural resources, we should be committing more resources to the Great 
Lakes, not less.
  A similar amendment was offered by Senator Kirk and Senator Durbin 
and was adopted by the Senate Appropriations Committee last week.
  I thank my colleagues, especially Mr. Collins, Mr. Lipinski, and Ms. 
Schakowsky, for their support of this bipartisan amendment and urge its 
adoption.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I will support the amendment, but I do have some 
concerns.
  Of course we want the Corps to take a look at the cost of their 
operation across the Nation to see where they can make savings.
  We are seeking from the Corps information before we make any final 
decisions, but I'm supportive of their objectives. We just need to take 
a closer look at the financial justification for what they're doing.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COLLINS of New York. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Higgins 
from New York, for putting forth this amendment.
  He and I stood together in Buffalo to talk about the adverse effects 
this proposal by the Army Corps of Engineers would have on the growth 
and maintenance of the Great Lakes, one of our Nation's greatest 
resources. But this issue is not specific to just western New York and 
it's not partisan. It's about preserving our Great Lakes.
  Many of us don't know, but there are 4,500 miles of U.S. coastline 
along the Great Lakes, making it larger than both the Atlantic and 
Pacific coast combined. And among this huge length of coastline, there 
are many hundreds of projects. Many harbors that are critical to 
commercial navigation and recreation are in serious disrepair.
  By moving contracting officers, those who are on the ground and 
require face-to-face contact with the companies doing the actual work, 
these projects will only fall further into disrepair. It won't save a 
dollar to move these employees to an office far from the site of a 
project. If you move these workers to Detroit or Louisville, some of 
them working on Buffalo or Chicago-area projects will have to be flown 
in and stay at local hotels at government expense. How can this 
possibly save money? Common sense tells me it's going to be more 
costly.

                              {time}  1330

  This amendment is simple, as it will prevent funds in this bill from 
being

[[Page 11206]]

used for this proposal. It will help maintain the Great Lakes, which 
are a key economic driver to our national economy.
  I hope my colleagues will support this bipartisan amendment that will 
ensure the Army Corps of Engineers will provide timely delivery on 
projects that reduce flooding, protect the shoreline, maintain 
navigation, and support water-quality efforts all along the Great 
Lakes.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. First, I want to express my thanks to the chairman 
for saying that he would accept this bipartisan amendment, and to my 
colleagues who have spoken about it.
  The decision to eliminate many of the functions from the Chicago and 
the Buffalo offices were done without consultation with the local 
communities and without seeking the approval of the Congress, which is 
what they are supposed to do.
  The downsizing just in Chicago could cause as many as 200 jobs lost 
in our area, and it certainly could affect the health and safety of our 
waterways. Chicago is the point of entry from the Mississippi River to 
the Great Lakes, and its harbors are of major economic importance not 
just to Chicago, but to the entire Great Lakes region. As my colleague 
pointed out, it's a shoreline greater than either the Pacific or the 
Atlantic Coast. Actually, I just learned that from you today. Thank you 
for that important information.
  Its harbors are of major economic importance to all of us, and it 
assists in the rehabilitation of the Chicago shoreline. It also, from 
the Chicago district office, leads the fight against the spread of the 
Asian carp into Lake Michigan.
  I have very serious concern about the downsizing of the Chicago 
district and the impacts it would have on those efforts. Like the 
chairman, I understand the Corps' efforts to reduce costs and our 
interest in doing that; but the minimization of the Chicago and Buffalo 
areas would trade short-term savings with much more significant and 
lasting long-term costs.
  As my colleague pointed out, Senator Kirk and Senator Durbin passed a 
similar amendment in the Senate. I urge all of my colleagues to join in 
supporting us in this important bipartisan amendment to prevent the 
Army Corps from reducing its Chicago and Buffalo offices.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I want to thank Congressman Higgins for offering this 
important amendment, and Congresswoman Schakowsky for her leadership on 
lakes issues, and also Chairman Frelinghuysen for his openness to those 
of us who happen to live in the Great Lakes region.
  Obviously, I rise in support of the amendment. Also, I just wanted to 
say on the record to the Corps, it would be wonderful if somebody over 
at the Corps had a map and they took all of the watersheds of the Great 
Lakes and they put them all together and then the staff for the Great 
Lakes would be located somewhere in those watersheds, because right 
now, that isn't the case. And it causes us all kinds of bloody problems 
up in our part of the world where we do adjoin Canada up there. You 
know, there's another country north of us. It has been so hard to get 
them to recognize the coastline that you described. And so this is my 
moment to vent a little bit on the floor and say: Hello, Corps. We're 
out there.
  I happen to represent the largest watershed in the Great Lakes, and 
we really need the Corps' focus on the most important freshwater system 
that exists on the face of the Earth. Twenty percent of the freshwater 
on the globe, surface freshwater, is up in our region. And it always 
seems like it's never together. It's never together. So the gentleman's 
amendment helps to focus a little bit on this, but the challenge goes 
beyond just this amendment.
  I know the Corps will hear us, and I know as they talk about 
restructuring, meeting budget realities, they will view us as a system 
that is important to think of as a whole, not just in little pieces and 
dangling particles and things that happen out there, but rather as an 
extraordinarily important water system for our continent and for our 
world.
  So I wanted the opportunity to say that on the record, and I thank 
Congressman Higgins for his leadership, and I thank the chairman for 
his understanding. We in the Great Lakes region face our own set of 
issues, and we need the Corps' full cooperation. I ask my colleagues to 
support the Higgins amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Higgins).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Walberg

  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to carry out section 801 of the Energy Independence 
     and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17281).

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WALBERG. My amendment prohibits the use of funds to be used to 
carry out section 801 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 
2007, which creates a national media campaign to promote alternative 
green energies. The 2007 energy law directs the Department of Energy to 
run a national media campaign to promote alternative energies, 
encourage energy efficiency, and discourage the use of fossil fuels, 
authorizing $5 million a year.
  Promoting green-energy technology is really not the role of the 
Federal Government apart from an all-of-the-above energy plan, and it 
certainly is not part of the core mission of the Department of Energy. 
The American people don't need more government bureaucrats to tell them 
what energy sources they should use. The government needs to get out of 
the business of picking winners and losers in the energy market and 
certainly shouldn't be funding advertising campaigns on behalf of 
private green-energy firms, which is normally a losing proposition to 
the taxpayer.
  This amendment is more than fair. It was included in the last 
Congress' attempt at this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it and to defund this taxpayer media campaign.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am in support of the gentleman's amendment, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Grayson

  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract with any offeror or any of 
     its principals if the offeror certifies, as required by 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation, that the offeror or any of 
     its principals:
       (A) within a three-year period preceding this offer has 
     been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against it 
     for: commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection 
     with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public 
     (Federal, State, or local) contract or subcontract; violation 
     of Federal or State antitrust statutes relating to the 
     submission of offers; or commission of embezzlement, theft, 
     forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, 
     making false statements, tax evasion, violating Federal 
     criminal tax laws, or receiving stolen property; or

[[Page 11207]]

       (B) are presently indicted for, or otherwise criminally or 
     civilly charged by a governmental entity with, commission of 
     any of the offenses enumerated above in subsection (A); or
       (C) within a three-year period preceding this offer, has 
     been notified of any delinquent Federal taxes in an amount 
     that exceeds $3,000 for which the liability remains 
     unsatisfied.

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRAYSON. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, expands the list of 
contractors who are forbidden from contracting with the Federal 
Government, to include such contractors as those who have been 
convicted of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, et cetera. This 
amendment is identical to language that was inserted in the Military 
Construction, Veterans Administration, and the Homeland Security 
appropriations bills by voice vote.
  Since brevity is sometimes an under-appreciated virtue, I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We accept the gentleman's amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of entering into a colloquy.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today for the purpose of entering 
into a colloquy with the chairman of the Energy and Water 
Appropriations Subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. Chairman, the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant for many years was 
the only plant operating in America in which uranium was enriched. This 
facility has met the national security needs of the United States since 
1952, producing enriched uranium for nuclear weapons and commercial 
nuclear reactors.
  On May 24, 2013, it was announced that the facilities of the Paducah 
Gaseous Diffusion Plant would be transitioned back to the Department of 
Energy, resulting in 1,200 lost jobs and a vast need to start cleanup 
of the area.
  Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Secretary of Energy 
now has full responsibility for decontamination and decommissioning 
cleanup work at the Paducah site and for reindustrialization of the 
materials and facilities at that site. I was pleased that Secretary 
Moniz recently announced on July 3 Request for Offers to utilize the 
assets, land, and facilities at the Paducah Department of Energy site.
  As we move forward to finish the legacy cleanup of this plant and, 
most important, to reindustrialize that site to create new jobs, we are 
going to need to work with the chairman's committee on a very close 
basis. I hope that we can work with you in the coming years to ensure 
that we provide the Department the necessary support to accelerate 
reindustrialization through the Request for Offers process and also 
expedite the cleanup.
  I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey 
personally for his commitment in working with us on this, for the job 
that you have done on the 2014 Energy and Water appropriations bill, 
and I just hope that you will continue working with us.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I look forward to working with my friend from 
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), who is a strong advocate on behalf of 
Kentucky, for jobs for Kentucky and the Paducah plant. We do appreciate 
the work that the Department is doing to reindustrialize the Paducah 
site. We also recognize that the cleanup on the site must get done in a 
timely fashion, and we hope to work with the various stakeholders and 
with Congressman Whitfield to ensure that happens.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.


           Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Barrow of Georgia

  Mr. BARROW of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce any authority, 
     in any preceding provision of this Act, to use funds for the 
     purchase or hire of motor vehicles.

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BARROW of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this week marks the beginning of 
sequestration-related furloughs in my district. As a result, 3,200 
employees at Fort Gordon near Augusta, Georgia, will be doing without 
20 percent of their pay for the next few months.
  Also, like many in this House, my district is home to projects caught 
in the Corps of Engineers' construction backlog. In particular, the New 
Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam near Augusta has been waiting for repairs 
by the Corps of Engineers for 13 years, when Congress first authorized 
them.
  This bill includes language to allow the Federal Government to 
purchase more cars on top of the 700,000 vehicles it already owns. My 
amendment would simply prohibit the expenditure of funds to purchase 
more vehicles. I believe there are better ways to spend that money.
  I am serious about cutting unnecessary and wasteful spending. I also 
believe that cutting spending shouldn't be an end unto itself. It's an 
opportunity to reduce our deficit, but it's also an opportunity to make 
our government work better.
  This amendment represents a relatively small change to the bill, but 
I believe it speaks to a larger principle. It would be an inappropriate 
use of taxpayer money to purchase more cars when so many folks across 
the country are being forced out of work and so many critical projects 
sit untouched. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the gentleman from Georgia's 
amendment. His amendment is overly broad and would prevent the 
Department of Energy, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of 
Reclamation, and the National Nuclear Security Agency, all agencies 
covered under our bill, from leasing or purchasing any new vehicles.
  I understand my colleague's concern with the size of vehicle fleet 
within some of these agencies; and, in fact, I share some of those very 
concerns. That's why our bill actually carries a reporting requirement 
within the Department of Energy to report on its vehicle fleet.

                              {time}  1345

  However, this amendment would have serious unintended consequences, 
ranging from maintenance of Corps sites to science at our national 
labs, such of which are tied to the nuclear stockpile that are involved 
in protecting our nuclear sites.
  Therefore, I must oppose the amendment. I certainly understand his 
reasons for doing it. I'm supportive in theory, but there are some 
potentially unintended consequences, so I must oppose it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).
  The amendment was rejected.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Scalise

  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for 
     ``Department of

[[Page 11208]]

     Energy--Energy Programs--Department Administration'', and 
     increasing the amount made available for ``Corps of 
     Engineers-Civil--Department of the Army--Corps of Engineers--
     Construction'', by $2,000,000.

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment that 
reestablishes priorities here. It's similar to an amendment we passed 
overwhelmingly last year on this same piece of legislation, the Energy 
and Water appropriations bill.
  What this amendment does is it transfers $2 million out of the 
Department of Energy's Administrative account and moves that money into 
the Corps of Engineers construction budget. And the reason we're doing 
this is to move more projects forward, to actually get some of that 
backlog that the Corps of Engineers have moved forward and open up the 
door for projects all across the country that are vital to not only our 
Nation's waterways, our economy, our ability to export, but in 
Louisiana, for example, it would provide opportunity to move forward on 
the Louisiana Coastal Area plan, which is a coastal restoration plan 
that's a major flood protection project.
  So what we're talking about is, literally, one penny, one penny 
coming out of administration, of bureaucracy in Washington, to move 
that money into actual construction projects.
  And I think when you talk to taxpayers across the country, they are 
less concerned about having bureaucracy in Washington. They want to 
actually see government get things done. They want to see this backlog 
get cleared out, and they want to see other projects that are important 
to our Nation's economy move forward. And that's what this amendment 
does. It's a bipartisan amendment.
  I want to thank my colleagues--Mr. Richmond, Mr. Cassidy--who have 
also helped work on this. But again, this deals with projects all 
across the country that are in a backlog that could help move our 
economy forward rather than spending that money on administration in 
Washington.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. If I may ask a question of Mr. Scalise, are you 
seeking money for the overall account or are you seeking a certain 
amount of money for a project in your neck of the woods in Louisiana?
  I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The way that this amendment is drafted actually would apply 
nationwide. This would move $2 million out of that administrative 
account in the Department of Energy, move it into the overall Corps 
construction budget, so it would be available to the Corps of Engineers 
for construction projects across the Nation.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I do rise in opposition to the amendment.
  And let me say, I appreciate the gentleman's passion for coastal 
restoration. I know it's a high priority for his district and others 
around the Nation.
  The bill before us includes over $5 million to continue studies, 
engineering and design work and various components of the program. 
That's nearly 6 percent of the entire Investigations account dedicated 
to continuing work in coastal restoration in Louisiana.
  The committee had to make some tough choices in the bill. While the 
Army Corps was a high priority, it was not completely spared. The 
Construction account, specifically, is slightly below the President's 
budget request, and almost 20 percent below the fiscal year 2013 
appropriations.
  The Corps has numerous projects already under construction that were 
not included in the President's budget and, so, aren't likely to be 
funded in fiscal year 2014.
  While construction funding is trending downward, I believe it is most 
prudent to prioritize funding for ongoing projects so they can be 
completed and the Federal Government can realize the public safety, 
economic and other benefits from previous spending, rather than 
starting new projects. It's unclear to me whether this is a new 
project, but I take the gentleman at his word that this is not a new 
project.
  I do oppose the amendment. The reduction would substantially work 
against our purposes of trying to balance the Federal budget and lower 
the Federal deficit.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RICHMOND. I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, I would urge everyone to support the 
bipartisan amendment that's being offered by my colleague, Mr. Scalise, 
from Louisiana.
  And just in response to the last comment about reducing the budget 
and getting our fiscal house in order, there are two ways to do it, and 
one way to do that is to make wise investments that give you a return 
on your dollar.
  This investment, alone, would secure the coastal area of Louisiana, 
which would prevent the Federal Government from spending money in 
future years because of effects of hurricanes or surge or coastal 
erosion. The dollar we spend today, I'm sure, and I feel very 
comfortable in saying, we will recoup multiple dollars because of that.
  If you just look at Louisiana and what we've contributed to the 
Nation's economy and to the Federal Government since 1950-2006, the 
Federal Government, the Federal Treasury has received over $150 billion 
from Louisiana. And we do that in a number of ways.
  But if you think about Louisiana, you think about the coast that 
we're talking about. We're talking about 33 percent of the Nation's 
seafood comes from the coast of Louisiana. We're talking about almost a 
quarter of the Nation's domestic energy, and you look at it's home to 
the country's largest port system.
  So when we talk about what we're protecting and the $2 million that 
we would spend today and the amount of money that we would recoup, I 
would just say that it's probably the prudent thing to do is to spend 
this money so that we can continue to protect Louisiana and the 
investment it makes in the country so that we continue to do it.
  And I would also add that the bipartisan amendment simply builds on 
President Obama's 2014 budget request, and the administration called 
this a high-priority construction project.
  So I would just urge everyone to support this bipartisan amendment 
and to look at it not as just spending or construction, but as truly an 
investment in the future of the country in terms of making sure that 
our energy production, our seafood, that the people in south Louisiana 
continue to have comfort and some protection.
  And I would just tell you that either we spend it today or we're 
going to spend it tomorrow in an exponential number, because restoring 
the coast of Louisiana is a national priority and it's a national need. 
And if you look at the coast of Louisiana, every hour we still lose a 
football field of land, and at some point, we're going to pay for it. 
My preference would be to pay for it when we're not spending as much.
  So it's almost like that leaking roof. You can pay for it now and 
just replace some shingles, or you can wait a couple of years and 
replace not only the shingles, but the roof, the ceiling, the carpet, 
and the electrical.
  So, at some point, it's your choice. And I would just urge us to 
support this amendment, and let's spend the money now while we can get 
a great return on our investment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I am rising to express sympathy with the authors of this 
amendment, Congressman Scalise and Congressman Richmond. And you're 
eloquent spokesmen for your districts and your regions.
  I hope that you and the membership understand that one of the reasons 
that we reluctantly opposed your amendment is because the mark we were 
given in our bill is so far below what

[[Page 11209]]

we need to meet all national needs. Your proposal is actually a new 
start, if we were using the classification system that we use. And as 
much as we want to fund it, we simply don't have the funds in the bill 
to do it.
  The Corps has over $60 billion worth, $60 billion of backed up 
projects that they are not able to complete. It would be the biggest 
job creator in this country if we could move off the dime and fund 
those projects.
  But to take and prioritize Louisiana as a new start over, for 
example, Sacramento, that has major challenges with their levee system, 
or St. Louis, how does one choose? Or the Great Lakes, where we can't 
dredge ports.
  And I often tell the story that, without the dredging in the Great 
Lakes, pretty soon, rather than having a channel that's like this--they 
keep narrowing the channel because we have less and less money--pretty 
soon it's going to silt up. We won't be able to get anything through.
  So we have a problem in our bill in trying to fund everything that is 
necessary for the sake of the Nation.
  So your proposal is worthy, but how do we put you in the front of the 
line when others have been in line and we've not been able to complete 
their projects? We need to be able to have $60 billion in order to 
complete the work of the Corps with just existing projects that are 
already in line.
  So I reluctantly stand here today in a very uncomfortable position. 
That project that you're referring to is billions of dollars in cost, 
and starting it now is something we simply can't afford, based on the 
allocation that we were given in our committee. We're below last year. 
We're below what's necessary for the Nation, and we're paying the price 
from coast to coast. So, Louisiana is deserving of attention, but so 
are 49 other States that have projects backed up.
  And I say to the chairman, I completely share your pain in trying to 
hold the line at completing what is in line and not letting anyone else 
cut the line for their projects, no matter how worthy they are. Our 
fundamental problem is we don't have the funds to complete everything 
that is necessary.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote with us in opposition to this 
amendment, as much as I sympathize with its worthiness. It just isn't 
possible with everything else that is in line ahead of it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CASSIDY. First, let's be clear, this is not just for Louisiana. 
This $2 million will be available nationwide.
  And that said, I rise in support of this amendment. Budgets are about 
establishing priorities and then making wise use of scarce resources. 
We know with these scarce resources, $1 million in a planning grant, 
which later on will be funded to greater dollars, can actually save 
billions in hurricane repair.
  So, if I may say, there is lots of money right now in the Corps. The 
fact is the Corps has even a larger backlog, and these projects are not 
$2 million to complete. It takes $500,000 to begin the NEPA process or 
the sampling of the soil or something like that. So small amounts of 
dollars at the beginning can initiate a process that comes to fruition 
with an authorization later on.
  This is a national issue. Let me just speak just about Louisiana, 
because you could equally speak about your home State.
  The gasoline that is sold in Philadelphia is produced in St. Charles 
Parish. If a hurricane knocks out that petrochemical plant, gasoline 
prices rise by 20 cents a gallon in the Northeast.
  Now, you could say something similar in Ohio and Mr. Garamendi in 
California and others elsewhere. So we're not saying initiate a process 
which completely funds. We're saying give seed money so that community 
in California, Ohio, or Louisiana can begin the process where later on 
we can make a decision regarding greater funding.
  We can, as Mr. Richmond said, either spend a little bit now and 
potentially save billions in the future or, on our budget priorities, 
we can say we're going to be penny-wise but pound-foolish.
  I urge passage of the amendment. I thank my colleague for introducing 
it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceeding were postponed, 
in the following order:
  Amendment by Mr. Hastings of Florida.
  Amendment by Mr. Garamendi of California.
  Amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia.
  Amendment by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
  Amendment by Mr. Quigley of Illinois.
  Amendment by Mr. Heck of Nevada.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.

                              {time}  1400


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 156, 
noes 266, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 328]

                               AYES--156

     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Markey
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Walz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--266

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardenas
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent

[[Page 11210]]


     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     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)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Latta
     Lewis
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meng
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Campbell
     Gohmert
     Grijalva
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hunter
     McCarthy (NY)
     Negrete McLeod
     Rogers (MI)
     Shimkus
     Webster (FL)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1426

  Messrs. TIPTON, BENTIVOLIO, PALAZZO, COSTA, HUDSON, MESSER, PETERS of 
California, ISRAEL, and RYAN of Ohio changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Ms. CLARKE changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Garamendi) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 155, 
noes 266, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 329]

                               AYES--155

     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kuster
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Markey
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Walz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--266

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardenas
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Kelly (PA)
     Kilmer
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meng
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Broun (GA)
     Campbell
     Holt
     Horsford
     Huelskamp
     Hunter
     McCarthy (NY)
     Negrete McLeod
     Rogers (MI)
     Shimkus
     Stivers
     Webster (FL)
     Young (FL)


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1432

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on

[[Page 11211]]

the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 165, 
noes 252, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 330]

                               AYES--165

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Crawford
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Southerland
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--252

     Alexander
     Andrews
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Collins (NY)
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Radel
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Richmond
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walden
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Campbell
     Cole
     Delaney
     Gohmert
     Gutierrez
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hunter
     McCarthy (NY)
     Negrete McLeod
     Noem
     Rogers (MI)
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Tiberi
     Webster (FL)
     Young (FL)


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1439

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson 
Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184, 
noes 238, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 331]

                               AYES--184

     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
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     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
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

[[Page 11212]]



                               NOES--238

     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
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     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)
     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
     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
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     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 (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Campbell
     Cole
     Cramer
     Gohmert
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hunter
     McCarthy (NY)
     Negrete McLeod
     Rogers (MI)
     Shimkus
     Young (FL)


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California changed his vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Quigley

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196, 
noes 227, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 332]

                               AYES--196

     Amash
     Andrews
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSantis
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Labrador
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Marchant
     Marino
     Markey
     Massie
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Radel
     Rahall
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Yoho

                               NOES--227

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bass
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bucshon
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Danny
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Campbell
     Gohmert
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hunter
     McCarthy (NY)
     Negrete McLeod
     Paulsen
     Rogers (MI)
     Shimkus
     Young (FL)

[[Page 11213]]




                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1452

  Mr. WENSTRUP changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. RICE of South Carolina changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 332 (Quigley), I was 
unexpectedly detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Gosar was allowed to speak out of order.)


             A Moment of Silence in Honor of the Yarnell 19

  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, we, the Arizona delegation, rise today in 
the wake of the tragic Yarnell Hill Fire that has left our hearts, the 
hearts of Arizonans and the hearts of Americans across the country 
overwhelmed with disbelief and sadness.
  This was the largest loss of life of first responders since 9/11.
  The town of Yarnell and the people of Arizona will never forget and 
will forever honor the 19 heroes of the elite Granite Mountain Hotshot 
fire crew who lost their lives in an act of self-sacrificing bravery.
  Out of my deepest respect for these fallen heroes, their families and 
the communities of Prescott, Peeples Valley and Yarnell, I ask you to 
keep them in your prayers.
  I now ask you to join me and my colleagues for a moment of silence to 
honor the Yarnell 19's ultimate act of courage and sacrifice.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Heck of Nevada

  The CHAIR. Without objection, 5-minute voting will continue.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 86, 
noes 338, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 333]

                                AYES--86

     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Crawford
     Edwards
     Farenthold
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (NV)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lankford
     Matheson
     McCaul
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Petri
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Radel
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rooney
     Ross
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Thornberry
     Turner
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Wittman
     Yoder
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--338

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     LaMalfa
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Markey
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Roby
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Campbell
     Gohmert
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hunter
     McCarthy (NY)
     Negrete McLeod
     Rogers (MI)
     Shimkus
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1501

  Messrs. DAINES, PASTOR of Arizona, and Ms. WATERS changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Yoder) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hultgren, Chair of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2609) making 
appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes, 
had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________