[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3897-3903]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2824, PREVENTING GOVERNMENT WASTE 
AND PROTECTING COAL MINING JOBS IN AMERICA; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION 
 OF H.R. 2641, RESPONSIBLY AND PROFESSIONALLY INVIGORATING DEVELOPMENT 
ACT OF 2013; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE 
                                 RULES

  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 501 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 501

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2824) to amend the Surface Mining Control and 
     Reclamation Act of 1977 to stop the ongoing waste by the 
     Department of the Interior of taxpayer resources and 
     implement the final rule on excess spoil, mining waste, and 
     buffers for perennial and intermittent streams, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Natural Resources. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 113-41 modified by the amendment printed in 
     part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 
     amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be in order except those printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

[[Page 3898]]

       Sec. 2.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     2641) to provide for improved coordination of agency actions 
     in the preparation and adoption of environmental documents 
     for permitting determinations, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 113-39. That amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in part C 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of March 6, 2014, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules, as though 
     under clause 1 of rule XV, relating to a measure addressing 
     loan guarantees to Ukraine.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Florida is recognized for 1 hour.

                              {time}  0915

  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
rule and the underlying bills.
  House Resolution 501 provides a structured rule for consideration of 
H.R. 2641, the Responsibility of Professionally Invigorating 
Development Act, known as the RAPID Act. The resolution also provides a 
structured rule for consideration of H.R. 2824, Preventing Government 
Waste and Protecting Coal Mining Jobs in America.
  Lastly, the resolution provides suspension authority for legislation 
to provide much-needed financial relief to the government of Ukraine.
  The resolution makes in order all of the amendments submitted to the 
Committee on Rules regarding the RAPID Act. It makes in order half of 
the amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules regarding the coal 
jobs bill.
  Of the amendments made in order, more than half are sponsored by my 
colleagues across the aisle. The resolution provides for a robust 
debate in the House of Representatives.
  In July, the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and 
Antitrust Law held a hearing on H.R. 2641. The subcommittee reported 
the bill favorably, without amendment, by voice vote. On July 31, the 
Committee on the Judiciary ordered H.R. 2641 favorably reported without 
amendment.
  In August, the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources held 
hearings on H.R. 2824. In November, the Committee on Natural Resources, 
by a bipartisan vote, voted favorably for the bill and reported it out.
  Mr. Speaker, the bills before us today garnered majority support and 
bipartisan support for one simple reason: they ensure the regulatory 
process works for Americans, as intended by Congress.
  Across the Nation, energy and infrastructure projects are being 
significantly delayed. In some cases, the environmental reviews have 
continued on for a decade or more. According to a study by the Chamber 
of Commerce, current delays are costing more than $1 trillion in 
economic development; and those delays are also prohibiting the 
creation of 1.9 million jobs.
  As our country continues to struggle through a lackluster recovery, 
ensuring these beleaguered studies are completed would help generate 
jobs and create economic growth.
  Mr. Speaker, in 2011, President Obama's Council on Jobs and 
Competitiveness recommended action to simplify regulatory review and 
streamline project approvals to accelerate jobs and growth.
  Just this year, in his State of the Union, President Obama called for 
permit streamlining. He said action must be taken to ``slash 
bureaucracy and streamline the permitting process for key projects so 
we can get more construction workers on the job as fast as possible.''
  News reports like to highlight our disagreements. In fact, it often 
seems that there is nothing that we can agree on. That is not true. 
Earlier this term, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3080, the 
Water Resources Reform and Development Act. That bill passed by an 
overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 417-3.
  The RAPID Act is nearly identical legislation to streamlining 
provisions contained in H.R. 3080 and the streamlining proposals from 
the President.
  The House-passed WRRDA provided a process for Army Corps of 
Engineers-led studies to be concurrently reviewed in more of a 
parallel, as opposed to a linear fashion by multiple agencies. The 
President initiated a similar proposal, where studies had to be 
completed within 3 years.
  The President and each Member of Congress who supported WRRDA should 
support this bill. The RAPID Act is simple. It allows multiple agencies 
to study the environmental impacts of a project at the same time. 
Because the agencies will have a better process by which to study a 
project, the RAPID Act establishes a reasonable and efficient timeline 
for completion of the study.
  That is it. The RAPID Act provides a better process and a better 
timeline. The RAPID Act does not alter or weaken any of our 
environmental laws. The RAPID Act does not require that environmentally 
sensitive areas be developed.
  The RAPID Act does not force agencies to approve projects. It simply 
reforms our permitting and regulatory process to allow our Nation's 
most important infrastructure projects to move forward in a timely 
manner.
  The President has asked for this to happen. 417 House Democrats and 
Republicans have supported this already. The bill should pass the House 
overwhelmingly with bipartisan support. This bill will get Washington 
out of the way of our economic growth and put unemployed Americans on a 
pathway back to work.
  The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 2824, Preventing 
Government Waste and Protecting Coal Mining Jobs in America. H.R. 2824 
stabilizes the out-of-control regulatory scheme involving the 
Department of the Interior.
  In 2008, after a 5-year exhaustive process, the Office of Surface 
Mining finalized a rule to protect our streams from excessive coal 
waste. The rule was supposed to go into effect on January 12, 2009.
  However, the process was sidelined by a sue-and-settle gambit that 
the

[[Page 3899]]

OSM, under President Obama's administration, used to attempt to rewrite 
the already finalized rule.
  Since that settlement, the administration has spent 5 additional 
years and billed hardworking American taxpayers an additional $10 
million attempting to rewrite the rule.
  H.R. 2824 is simple. It tells OSM to put in place the 2008 rule, 
study the results, and report to Congress. If the study reveals a need 
to draft a new rule, then a new rule should be drafted. By putting in 
place the already finalized 2008 rule, H.R. 2824 ensures that our 
streams are safe while further study is conducted.
  It is easy to see why these underlying bills should garner strong 
bipartisan support. They are measured and balanced in their approach to 
our project study and regulatory processes. For these reasons, Mr. 
Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying pieces of 
legislation.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on 
the underlying bills.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my good 
friend from Florida, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just last week, I found myself standing here, managing a rule for two 
very similar bills. At the time, I thought we were on a merry-go-round, 
aimlessly moving in useless circles. I will stand by that analogy again 
today.
  When similar bills came before Congress last session, the Senate 
didn't pass them. The President said he would not sign them, as he has 
this particular legislation. It seems to me that these measures are a 
foregone conclusion.
  Ultimately, the same tired talking points might be a fun ride for 
some, but they will never actually take you anywhere. This kind of 
spinning in circles is a favorite tactic, it seems, of my friends on 
the other side of the aisle.
  For example, this Congress has already taken 109 antienvironmental 
votes. Last Congress, it was 247. These were votes against clear air, 
against clean water, and to destroy our planet for future generations.
  Under Republican leadership, we have also voted to repeal, as we did 
a day or so ago, the Affordable Care Act 50 different times, a law 
that, in many respects, has led to millions of Americans signing up for 
health insurance that didn't have it before.
  And I will continue to ask my colleagues: If you don't like that 
particular measure, where is yours that would replace it? And 
apparently, nothing is forthcoming, at least until this time.
  Based on the frequency of these quixotic votes, it is obvious that my 
friends across the aisle have given up or are not interested in 
governing or addressing any of the issues that are most pressing to 
this Nation.
  Consider, for instance, that there are 2 million Americans relying on 
Congress to extend unemployment insurance, with close to 200,000 of 
them being unemployed veterans who have sacrificed time and again for 
our country.
  Last week, I said the following:

       We should be spending the House's time on extending 
     unemployment insurance, working on comprehensive immigration 
     reform, and raising the minimum wage.

  My friends on the other side of the aisle have continued to ignore 
the plight of middle class and working poor Americans, immigrants 
hoping for a better life for their families, and denying the undeniable 
impact of climate change, just to name a few.
  We should be raising the minimum wage in order to give millions of 
hardworking Americans the pay they have earned. Nearly 5 years have 
passed since the last increase in the Federal minimum wage. Currently, 
a full-time minimum wage worker makes less than $16,000 per year, which 
is below the poverty line for a family of two or more.
  My friends did not take my suggestions last week, and I doubt they 
will take them this week. Instead, we are considering two more 
pointless bills that will go nowhere. One of them, the acronym for it 
is RAPID. That is correct. Rapidly and fastly, it will go nowhere.
  The first of today's bills, H.R. 2641, ignores the fact that, for 
more than 40 years, the National Environmental Policy Act has provided 
an effective framework for all types of proposed actions that require 
Federal approval pursuant to a Federal law, such as the Clean Water 
Act.

                              {time}  0930

  H.R. 2641 is based on the assumption that the NEPA environmental 
review and permitting process results in project delays.
  However, when we considered this measure last Congress, the 
Congressional Research Service reported that delays in construction 
project approvals ``are more often tied to local, State, and project-
specific factors.'' These factors include ``primarily local/State 
agency priorities, project funding levels, local opposition to a 
project, project complexity, or late changes in project scope,'' not to 
mention the litigation that goes on surrounding these measures.
  CRS goes even further, reporting that even most environmental project 
delays are not the result of NEPA, but actually due to ``laws other 
than NEPA.'' The measure undermines current regulatory protections and 
could jeopardize public health and safety by prioritizing speed over 
meaningful analysis.
  Now, turning to H.R. 2824, the other measure included in today's 
rule, which, like the 50 times that we voted to repeal the Affordable 
Care Act, my Republican friends have done that, they have also offered 
50 rules which are not open rules in spite of the fact that we began 
this session by the Speaker of the House saying that this would be the 
most open House that we have had.
  H.R. 2824 included in this rule is no more productive than the 
previous legislation offered. The legislation would overturn a court 
decision in order to block a buffer requirement designed to prevent 
damage to waterways from surface coal mining operations. These are 
protections that President Ronald Reagan put in place.
  The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that over 500 mountains 
have been destroyed by the practice of mountaintop removal mining, more 
than 1.2 million acres of forest has been eliminated, and nearly 2,000 
miles of streams have been buried or polluted by these mining projects. 
I wonder what part of knocking a mountaintop off do people not 
understand as destruction, and if it is to be, that it should be done 
carefully.
  These are protections for all of us in our society. As many as 60,000 
additional cases of cancer in central Appalachia are directly linked to 
mountaintop removal, and more than 700 additional deaths from heart 
disease occur each year.
  Last month, West Virginia University scientists published a study 
confirming high air pollution levels around mountaintop removal coal 
mines, suggesting a link to the higher rates of cardiovascular disease, 
birth defects, and cancer that is seen in these communities.
  Instead of addressing these issues, H.R. 2824 would reinstate a 
George W. Bush administration rule that essentially prohibits the 
United States Department of the Interior from implementing any 
protections for streams against mountaintop removal and coal mining.
  Let me lift the comment of Judge Charles Haden in a case called Bragg 
v. Robertson. The judge says:

       When valley fills are permitted in intermittent and 
     perennial streams, they destroy those stream segments. The 
     normal flow and gradient of the stream is now buried under 
     millions of cubic yards of excess spoil waste material, an 
     extremely adverse effect. If there are fish, they cannot 
     migrate. If there is any life form that cannot acclimate to 
     life deep in a rubble pile, it is eliminated. No effect on 
     related environmental values is more adverse than 
     obliteration. Under a valley fill, the water quality of the 
     stream becomes zero. Because there is no stream, there is no 
     water quality.

  The Bush rule in '08 was vacated by the District of Columbia District 
Court on February 20, 2014. The Obama administration started to draft 
new

[[Page 3900]]

stream protections upon taking office, into which the minority has 
conducted a long, fruitless investigation. Indeed, the years of 
investigation have uncovered no misconduct. The only results of the 
investigation are wasted time and taxpayer money, sending over 13,500 
pages of documents, 25 hours of audio recordings, 19,000 staff hours, 
and costing the United States Department of the Interior and Office of 
Surface Mining approximately $1.5 million.
  We saw an example yesterday in one of our committees investigating 
the Internal Revenue Service for something that just simply has not 
occurred in any partisan fashion. And I can demonstrate that because, 
if one believes that the IRS only went after conservative organizations 
within the time period that was being investigated by the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform, then it was not during that period 
that my church, Mt. Hermon AME Church in Fort Lauderdale, received the 
same kind of notices that are being complained about; and what we did 
was what everybody has every right to do, which is make the necessary 
appeal, and we were successful in that regard.
  All of these partisan witch hunts need to stop. We are a better 
people than this, and we should be about the business of the people of 
the United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, today's measure exists as partisan talking points, 
bumper sticker talk by my Republican colleagues, rather than serious 
legislation to move this country forward.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support for 
this rule which will govern debate on important legislation that my 
colleague, Doug Lamborn, and I have introduced.
  This legislation, the Preventing Government Waste and Protecting Coal 
Mining Jobs in America, would stop the administration from destroying 
thousands of direct and indirect coal mining jobs and stop the price of 
electricity in places like Ohio from skyrocketing.
  Since the early days of this administration, Mr. Speaker, the Office 
of Surface Mining at the Department of the Interior has been trying to 
rewrite a 2008 coal mining rule. This rewrite has been fraught with 
mismanagement, waste of taxpayer dollars, intimidation of contractors 
by OSM employees towards the contractors working on the rule, and even 
the Director of OSM demanding that the contractors change the job loss 
estimates because it would look bad politically for the administration. 
But, look, don't take my word for it. You can go out and read the 
Department's own inspector general's report that highlights the 
administration's problems rewriting this rule.
  This legislation would put an end to this nonsense and implement the 
2008 rule. It would save taxpayers millions of dollars that are being 
wasted on this frivolous rewrite. It also would protect the thousands 
of direct jobs that the administration admitted would be destroyed by 
this rule and thousands more indirect jobs that would also be lost.
  In eastern and southeastern Ohio, my constituents are the ones mining 
the coal that powers the economic engine in the Midwest, not to mention 
that America gets over 40 percent of its energy from coal, the State of 
Ohio gets over 80 percent of its energy from coal. This rule would put 
not only those jobs at risk, but also cause electricity prices to 
skyrocket and endanger the low electricity rates that manufacturing in 
this country relies on to keep moving forward.
  The rule from the Department must be stopped in order to protect 
hardworking coal miners across America and to stop the waste of 
taxpayer dollars by the Department of the Interior. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support this rule today and to support this legislation 
when it comes to the floor.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my good friend 
from Florida that I have no additional speakers at this time and would 
be prepared to close. So I reserve the balance of my time if you have 
additional speakers.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the sages of America who is often quoted is Will 
Rogers. One of the things that I paraphrase that he said was: Buy land, 
because we are not making any more of that. And I use it as an analogy 
for mountaintop mining, knocking off the tops of these mountains. We 
ain't making no more mountains. Although I guess we can because in 
Florida we have what we call trash mountains. So I guess we can build 
something up, but I doubt very seriously that the quality of it will be 
of the kind that we see with the mountain ranges of this great America.
  Mr. Speaker, these bills are about protecting special interests that 
happen to be near and dear to some of my friends across the aisle. We 
are here voting on tired, discredited, and destructive policies that 
have absolutely no chance of becoming law. This is a failure of 
leadership by my Republican colleagues and, quite frankly, a waste of 
time. We should not be considering measures that will help destroy this 
planet for our children and grandchildren. We need strong environmental 
protections to ensure that we have clean air, clean water, and clean 
food.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3546, Mr. Levin's bill to extend 
emergency unemployment insurance for the long-term unemployed across 
this country for whom it has run out.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is a very sad thing that we 
continue to let people languish without fulfilling our responsibility 
to them with reference to unemployment insurance. It is a detriment to 
this Nation, and it serves us no useful purpose to continue delaying 
this particular effort.
  While I do have the floor for a moment, I do wish to address 
legislation that I hope does come here with reference to our offering 
assistance to the people in Ukraine who should have an opportunity to 
make their own determination regarding their future and that we should 
stand with and, I am sure, are prepared to do so in an effort to assist 
them.
  Mr. Speaker, I had the good fortune of being the president of the 
Parliamentary Assembly for the Organization for Security and 
Cooperation in Europe. During that time, I went to Ukraine on three 
different occasions, and during that time, I had the good fortune to be 
the lead monitor after the Orange Revolution; so it is not that I don't 
have a clear understanding of much that is going on. But what I hope my 
colleagues here will do is recognize that the Baltics, the Balkans, and 
the near abroad of Russia and Europe are in need of clarity with 
reference to matters and not simpleminded, noncomplex answers to very 
difficult problems that Ukraine is now faced with. It is a nationwide, 
continuing problem for us.
  Mr. Speaker, apparently, we do have some other speaker en route, so I 
am required to reserve the balance of my time, as I anticipated I might 
be.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we had someone show up, and so 
the gentleman from Florida has allowed the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Lamborn) to speak.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank both of the gentlemen for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we just need to adopt H.R. 2824 and the rule supporting 
it. This is a good piece of legislation.
  Unfortunately, this administration is waging what appears to many of 
us to be a war on coal. The stream buffer zone rule that has been 
proposed by

[[Page 3901]]

OSM, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation, is a very troubling 
rule. It would have adverse effects on all kinds of coal mining way 
beyond what the stated intention is.

                              {time}  0945

  The stated intention is to protect the quality of streams in the 
Appalachian area, but this rule goes way beyond that. This would have 
the effect of closing down much of the coal mining in that part of the 
country. So it is overkill. It is way beyond what is necessary.
  The whole rulemaking process, Mr. Speaker, is flawed. We had a very 
good rewrite of the rules that was done in the last administration. 
That went through millions of dollars of effort, many years of 
rulemaking, taking comments, and the end result was a very satisfactory 
rewrite of the older rule. Yet, without even letting that fully take 
effect, this administration is throwing that rule out and wanting to go 
to an overly stringent and unrealistic rule. Let's go back to the last 
rule that was done through the proper procedures.
  So H.R. 2824 is a good piece of legislation. I commend Representative 
Johnson for carrying this piece of legislation. We have looked at this 
in detail in our full committee and in the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Mineral Resources, and this is a much better approach. So I urge the 
full House to adopt H.R. 2824 and the rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and 
will. I will close with what I said yesterday. When I was a child, 
Tennessee Ernie Ford sang a song about coal mining. It was that you 
load 16 tons and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt.
  I have been in Appalachia, as have many of my friends. I went to 
school in Tennessee, and often had an opportunity to travel to Kentucky 
and other areas during that period of time, and I have been in West 
Virginia. I have seen the conditions that many people work in.
  I would only hope that they know that there are voices here who 
believe, just like throughout the rest of this Nation, in spite of the 
awesomeness of the work that they do in coal mining--and I might add as 
a footnote, there has been no deterioration in the job market with 
reference to coal mining--all that is being sought is that coal mining 
be done in a safe manner, and that the people living in those 
surroundings have the same kind of quality air, quality water, and 
quality food that is desperately needed by everybody.
  We need look no further than West Virginia and accidents that have 
occurred there. Nobody wanted that to happen. Indeed, what we saw were 
corporate dodges of people who had taken advantage of smaller 
communities. That needs to stop.
  I believe my colleagues here want to see to it that we have a 
situation where those who are working in these environments have an 
opportunity for safety and have an opportunity for clean air in their 
regions as well as water and food.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question, and to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  This rule provides for ample and open debate. It makes in order 
amendments from both sides of the aisle. Further, it advances bills 
that were favorably reported out of committee and will receive 
bipartisan support.
  The RAPID Act is good for our infrastructure needs. It puts in place 
a good process that helps our agencies conduct quality and timely 
environmental reviews.
  This bill should receive overwhelming bipartisan support. Republicans 
and Democrats have supported these same provisions already in this 
Congress.
  The Florida delegation knows all too well the impact that delayed 
studies have on moving our critical projects forward. Port Everglades, 
which is in the district of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
has been under review for 17 years. That is too long. It is too much. 
It needs to be completed. The study of the project at Port Everglades 
is a prime example of Washington bureaucracy crushing America's jobs 
and America's future.
  The RAPID Act would make it possible to move projects forward while 
protecting our environment. Mr. Speaker, the President has proposed a 
similar solution. The House passed a similar solution in the WRDA bill. 
We should pass this bill and give our infrastructure projects a good 
review process.
  Our Nation's economy is sagging under an inefficient government. Our 
unemployed friends and neighbors are being hurt by our stagnant 
regulatory review system. The RAPID Act provides a better process and a 
better timeline. It does not change our environmental standards. It 
does not require agency approval of projects. It simply reforms our 
permitting process.
  The coal jobs bill puts in place an already approved rule. It ends 
the regulatory limbo that has existed since 2009. It gives certainty to 
those who work in the coal industry.
  Let's reform our review methods. Let's give our government the tools 
and the incentives to move America's infrastructure projects forward. 
When we do, we will release economic activity. We will strengthen our 
economy, and we will put Americans to work.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying bills are good. I urge Members of this 
House to vote for the rule, vote for the bills, and move our country 
forward.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule for 
H.R. 2641, the ``Responsible and Professionally Invigorating 
Development Act of 2013, or as some have termed it, the ``Regrettably 
Another Partisan Ideological Distraction Act.''
  If the RAPID Act were to become law in its present form, a permit or 
license for project would be ``deemed'' approved if the reviewing 
agency does not issue the requested permit or license within 90-120 
days.
  Mr. Speaker, I share some of the frustrations expressed by many 
members of the House Judiciary Committee, which marked up this bill 
last summer, with the NEPA process.
  There is something odd about a system in which it can take half a 
year or more to approve the siting plan for a wind farm but fracking 
operations regulations can be approved and conducted a few hundred feet 
from somebody's home with no community oversight process in just a few 
months.
  Something is wrong with this picture.
  But I strongly believe that this bill is a solution in search of a 
problem.
  The bill in its current form is an example of a medicine that is 
worse than a disease.
  There is a major problem with the section that my amendment 
addresses, namely automatic approval of projects with the need for 
positive agency action.
  I expect to speak on my amendment shortly but suffice it-to-say, this 
bill goes out of its way to ensure that some projects might be 
prematurely approved.
  That's because under H.R. 2641, if a federal agency fails to approve 
or disapprove the project or make the required finding of the 
termination within the applicable deadline, which is either 90 days or 
180 days, depending on the situation, then the project is automatically 
deemed approved, deemed approved by such agency.
  This creates a set of perverse incentives. First, as an agency is up 
against that deadline and legitimate work is yet to be completed, it is 
likely to disapprove the project simply because the issues have not 
been vetted.
  Second, frequently there are times when it is the case that the 
complexity of issues that need to be resolved necessitates a longer 
review period, rather than an arbitrary limit.
  So if H.R. 2641 were to become law the most likely outcome is that 
federal agencies would be required to make decisions based on 
incomplete information, or information that may not be available within 
the stringent deadlines, and to deny applications that otherwise would 
have been approved, but for lack of sufficient review time.
  In other words, fewer projects would be approved, not more.
  Mr. Speaker, the new requirements contained in H.R. 2641 amend the 
environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA), even though the bill is drafted as an amendment to the APA.
  The bill ignores the fact that NEPA has for more than 40 years 
provided an effective framework for all types of projects (not just 
construction projects) that require federal approval pursuant to a 
federal law, such as the Clean Air Act.

[[Page 3902]]

  I urge my colleagues to reject this Rule and the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

     An Amendment to H. Res. 501 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     3546) to provide for the extension of certain unemployment 
     benefits, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.

       Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3546.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, 
nays 191, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 99]

                               YEAS--219

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

                               NAYS--191

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur

[[Page 3903]]


     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Chaffetz
     Collins (NY)
     Crawford
     Diaz-Balart
     Gosar
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Hinojosa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     King (IA)
     McAllister
     McCarthy (NY)
     Negrete McLeod
     Pastor (AZ)
     Rogers (MI)
     Roskam
     Ryan (WI)
     Schneider
     Schwartz

                              {time}  1018

  Messrs. SCHRADER and RUPPERSBERGER changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 99 I was not present 
due to unavoidable air travel delays. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``yes.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 190, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 100]

                               YEAS--225

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

                               NAYS--190

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

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Chaffetz
     Collins (NY)
     Crawford
     Gosar
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Hinojosa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     McCarthy (NY)
     Negrete McLeod
     Pastor (AZ)
     Roskam
     Schneider
     Schwartz

                              {time}  1028

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________