[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10757-10765]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6, DOMESTIC PROSPERITY AND GLOBAL 
   FREEDOM ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3301, NORTH 
                   AMERICAN ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE ACT

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 636 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 636

       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. 6) to provide for expedited approval of 
     exportation of natural gas to World Trade Organization 
     countries, 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 amendments specified in this section 
     and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu 
     of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill, 
     it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 113-48. 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 A 
     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. 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. 
     3301) to require approval for the construction, connection, 
     operation, or maintenance of oil or natural gas pipelines or 
     electric transmission facilities at the national boundary of 
     the United States for the import or export of oil, natural 
     gas, or electricity to or from Canada or Mexico, 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 Energy and Commerce. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce now 
     printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 113-49. 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

[[Page 10758]]

     that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in part B of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois). The gentleman 
from Texas is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.

                              {time}  1230


                             General Leave

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 636 provides for 
consideration of two energy bills designed to provide certainty for 
those American businesses that have been given excuse after excuse as 
to why their permit applications have been delayed by the President, 
the Department of Energy, and other Federal agencies.
  The President and his administration have used every delaying tactic 
they can think of to put off approval of job-creating projects in the 
natural gas and oil sectors. Quite frankly, the American people are fed 
up with it. Republicans are here today to stand up for citizens, 
unions, and businesses that have stood up and called for a more 
expeditious process that removes politics from the permitting 
decisionmaking.
  The rule before us today provides for consideration of two bills, 
H.R. 6, the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, and H.R. 3301, 
the North American Energy Infrastructure Act. Both bills receive a 
standard structured rule under this rule.
  For H.R. 6, the Rules Committee makes in order four amendments--two 
from Democratic sponsors and two bipartisan amendments. For H.R. 3301, 
the rule makes in order three amendments, all sponsored by Democrats.
  This is a straightforward and fair rule that will allow the House to 
fully debate the issues of liquefied natural gas exports and cross-
border pipeline and transmission line projects.
  House Republicans have been focused on this country's energy 
independence for years. The Energy and Commerce Committee has been out 
in front of this effort, holding hearings on the Obama administration's 
harmful policies, holding hearings on the job-killing regulations and 
those that place restrictions on development on public lands and 
thereby increase the cost of producing electricity and fuel.
  Although President Obama is quick to take credit for an increase in 
natural gas and oil production in this country over the last few years, 
any honest observer knows that any increase in production has come as a 
result of efforts on private, not public land, and certainly not lands 
controlled by the Federal Government.
  In continuing the Republican majority's focus on domestic production 
issues, utilizing the resources that we have here in North America, 
Representative Cory Gardner introduced H.R. 6, the bipartisan Domestic 
Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, to provide for the expedited 
approval of exploration of natural gas to World Trade Organization 
countries. I am an original cosponsor of the legislation.
  In the Energy and Commerce Committee, we have had hearings about the 
gridlock which has held up dozens of applications from domestic 
production companies looking to export liquefied natural gas. Since the 
first non-free trade agreement application was submitted to the 
Department of Energy nearly 4 years ago, seven have been approved. 
Twenty-four are awaiting action.
  Interestingly enough, to counter what the Department of Energy knew 
would be the inevitable bipartisan criticism of its delays at the last 
hearing we held on this topic, the Department of Energy announced just 
days before the hearing the approval of another LNG export application.
  For anyone who thinks that this activity in the House is futile, 
given Harry Reid's intransigence in taking up any legislation that 
comes to the Senate from the House, this action by the Department of 
Energy highlights that efforts taken in this body--the House--can have 
meaningful impacts beyond simply having legislation signed into law.
  Sending a clear signal to the Obama administration that the people's 
House is fed up with its delaying tactics and refusal to move forward 
with the approval of legitimate permit applications is key to making 
progress toward a more robust domestic energy sector.
  The delays which President Obama's administration has imposed on 
these applications make it more and more difficult. As applications sit 
collecting dust for these companies trying to secure financing and 
countries looking to do business with American suppliers, they will 
soon lose patience and look elsewhere for their needs. The window for 
these opportunities is closing, and it is the President's hand that is 
pushing it down.
  Mr. Gardner's legislation is straightforward. Indeed, it is a two-
page bill with a clear purpose and intent. The legislation expedites 
the decisionmaking process for authorization to export natural gas by 
requiring the Department of Energy to issue a decision within a finite 
number of days.
  This legislation does not force the Department of Energy to make a 
decision or to make a decision a certain way. It simply says: make a 
decision.
  Moreover, an increase in liquefied natural gas exports in the United 
States can have major positive ramifications on international 
relations.
  I recently traveled to the Ukraine for their elections. I saw 
firsthand how Russia's cruel restrictions on natural gas are affecting 
the region's social and political atmosphere. Officials from the 
Ukraine and other Eastern European countries have told members of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee that the mere mention that the United 
States is increasing its LNG exports can have dramatic impacts on 
Russia's influence over the region. Mr. Gardner's bill achieves that 
goal.
  The passage of this bill will move the United States yet another step 
closer to both assisting our allies abroad as well as creating a more 
robust domestic industry at home.
  The second bill included in today's rule, H.R. 3301, the North 
American Energy Infrastructure Act, authored by Chairman Upton of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, further improves the laws governing the 
permitting of oil and gas pipelines which cross the United States 
border between either Mexico or Canada.
  As the country has witnessed over the past few years, despite 
overwhelming support from the American people for the project, 
President Obama and his Secretary of State--first Hillary Clinton and 
now John Kerry--have refused to approve the Keystone pipeline to bring 
oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.
  Those of us who have followed the process over the many years that 
this administration has had the Keystone application under its review 
know that the delays which the President has imposed on this approval 
process have

[[Page 10759]]

been done purely for political considerations and, in the process, have 
harmed the country's relationship with one of our closest allies, our 
neighbor to the north.
  If the goal of the President's delays--which he is clearly doing for 
his friends in the environmental lobby and certainly not for the many 
unions who have loudly called for the project's approval--was to stop 
development of the oil sands in Canada, the President again has failed.
  Canada recently approved the exploration of a new pipeline to its 
western coast, where oil would be transported and exported to Asia. 
Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee have been highlighting 
this possibility for years. Apparently, our predictions are about to 
come true.
  H.R. 3301 is about more than simply the Keystone pipeline. This 
legislation is about preventing the President--and future Presidents, 
regardless of their party--from playing politics with decisions that 
should be made on the merits of the project.
  This President has repeatedly ignored the State Department's 
comprehensive environmental review of the application, which found that 
minimal adverse impacts would occur from the building and operation of 
a cross-country pipeline, and has instead decided to base the decision 
purely on those special interests.
  This is not how major national projects should be evaluated in this 
country, and Chairman Upton's legislation ensures that future decisions 
will be done without the shadow of politics looming over them.
  However, although the legislation removes the politics out of such 
decisionmaking, it still ensures that other key safeguards in the 
approval process remain in place. Cross-border pipelines would still 
have to meet the Natural Gas Act's requirements, and they would still 
comply with all relevant Federal, State, and local siting and 
environmental law.
  The Department of Commerce and the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission both will play roles in this process, as well as the 
Department of Energy. Decisions must be made within a 120-day timeframe 
to prevent the types of delaying tactics that we have seen from the 
administration with regard to energy projects.
  To be clear, this legislation applies only to projects which cross 
national borders and does not make changes to the application process 
for interstate and intrastate energy projects.
  Mr. Speaker, both bills before us today are commonsense responses to 
the problems we have experienced when the President decides to play 
politics with the Nation's domestic energy industry.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on 
the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, for yielding 
me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the 
underlying bills. First of all, this rule is not open, and it denies 
some important and germane amendments. This is consistent with the 
increasingly closed mindset of this Republican leadership.
  I want to remind my colleagues that this is now the most closed 
Congress in history. There have been 62 closed rules in this Congress 
alone. That is a title I don't think either party would enjoy having, 
but this is the most closed Congress in history. Speaker Boehner, in 
his opening speech, said that openness would be the new standard. I 
guess he misspoke because that is not what is happening on these bills, 
and it hasn't been happening on most other important pieces of 
legislation. The approval rating of Congress from a poll, I think, 
Gallup did last week is at 7 percent. My friends can't blame that on 
President Obama, and they can't blame that on someone else. They are 
running the show here in the House. This is a reflection on the work or 
on the lack of work that is being done here.
  I think the American people want a full and open debate on important 
issues. I think the American people want us to focus on things that 
will actually make their lives better and that have a chance of 
actually becoming law. We have millions of our fellow citizens who are 
unemployed, and we can't even get the Republican leadership to bring an 
extension of unemployment insurance to the House floor for a vote. We 
can't even get it on the floor for a vote.
  We are trying to raise the minimum wage so that we are not 
subsidizing McDonald's or Wendy's, which pay their workers minimum 
wage. We are trying to give people a raise so that work actually pays 
in this country. We can't even get a minimum wage bill to this House 
floor for a vote. We can't even debate it, and we can't have a vote on 
it. They are blocking it.
  We need to fix our immigration system. It is broken. An immigration 
reform bill passed in the United States Senate in a bipartisan way, and 
it solves many of the problems that some of my friends on the other 
side are complaining about, but the leadership of this House won't even 
let us bring a bipartisan immigration reform bill to the House floor so 
that we can vote on it.
  It is no wonder why, under this Republican leadership, the approval 
rating of this body is 7 percent. I think that is history in and of 
itself. I don't know whether there was ever a Congress in the history 
of this country that had such a low rating.
  Now here we are with this legislation, H.R. 6, the amazingly named 
Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, which would improve neither 
our domestic prosperity nor global freedom. Instead, it would undermine 
the Department of Energy's approval process for the export of liquefied 
natural gas. The current process allows the DOE to evaluate the impacts 
of LNG exports on domestic natural gas prices for consumers and 
manufacturers as well as environmental impacts.
  This bill is a solution in search of a problem, Mr. Speaker. The 
Department of Energy is already aggressively approving LNG exports. The 
amounts already approved for exports would transform the United States 
into the world's second largest exporter of LNG. Further, under the 
bill, LNG would not be exported any faster. I urge my colleagues not to 
be fooled by the rhetoric that you may hear on the floor today. Passing 
this bill will not magically solve the natural gas problem in Ukraine 
or in other parts of the world.
  The other bill, H.R. 3301, the North American Energy Infrastructure 
Act, would dramatically weaken the environmental review process for 
transborder pipeline and electrical transmission line projects. This 
bill, which is a blatantly transparent effort to ``rig the game'' in 
favor of the Keystone pipeline project, would preclude the Federal 
Government from reviewing a project's full impacts, including oil 
spills and the consequences for landowners, public safety, drinking 
water, wildlife, and, yes, Mr. Speaker, climate change. Let me say 
those two words again because I know that many of our Republican 
colleagues tend to stick their heads in the sand when they hear them--
climate change.
  I think it is important to say a few things. Here is what we know. We 
know that burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the 
atmosphere. We know that carbon dioxide traps heat. We know that the 
levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are higher than they have 
been in 800,000 years. We know that 9 of the 10 warmest years since 
1880 have been in the last decade. We know that last month was the 
warmest month of May ever recorded.
  Yet, to hear some of my Republican friends, we should just move 
along--nothing to see here, nothing to worry about. There is no need to 
worry that the Arctic ice sheets are melting, leading to rapidly rising 
sea levels. There is no need to worry about more severe and deadly 
weather events. There is no need to worry about profound impacts to 
agricultural production. At best, you will hear them say that the 
science is still unsettled. It isn't. Climate change is real--it is 
happening--and we need to figure out what we should do about it.

[[Page 10760]]

  Sometimes they will say: Well, I am not a scientist, so I can't 
really comment about it. Mr. Speaker, I am not a scientist either, but 
I know that, if I drop my pen, it will fall to the floor because of 
gravity. No, most of us here in Congress are not scientists, but the 
overwhelming majority of the best and brightest scientific minds in the 
world have concluded that climate change is real, that it is happening, 
and humankind is currently making the problem worse.
  It would be nice, given the enormity of this problem, if my 
Republican friends would work with Democrats and would work with the 
White House to try to fashion a response. Instead, they deny that it is 
a problem, and we get more of the same old-same old. I regret that 
very, very much, but I can't quite understand, Mr. Speaker, why my 
Republican friends continue to ignore this critically important issue. 
I hope it isn't because of their borderline pathological hatred of 
President Obama. I hope that it isn't because of the Big Oil special 
interests and the millions and millions of dollars they pour into 
Republican campaigns. Whatever the reason, I hope that future 
generations will forgive them, because this is something that we should 
have been addressing years and years and years ago, and the continued 
blocking of any serious attempts to deal with climate change by the 
majority in this House, I think, is unconscionable.
  Having said that, Mr. Speaker, vote against the rule because it is 
not an open rule, and a lot of germane amendments--they were germane--
were not made in order. I am glad one of the authors of the bill got 
his amendment made in order, but he authored the bill, so I guess he 
gets special preference. There is no reason why all of the amendments 
couldn't have been made in order, and there is no reason why this 
couldn't have been an open process, because we are not really doing 
much this week. As for this legislation we are dealing with here today, 
my guess is it ain't going anywhere.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute for the purpose of 
a response.
  Two months ago, in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion, this House 
agreed to loan guarantees for the country of Ukraine as they dealt with 
an internal crisis in their country. It is interesting that, probably 
less than 24 hours after this House passed that loan guarantee, 
Vladimir Putin said: Do you know what? Your natural gas price just 
doubled. In fact, next year, it is going to cost you an extra $1 
billion. So, in effect, he used natural gas pricing policy to offset 
the loan guarantees that we had provided to the country of Ukraine to 
deal with their internal problems.
  Mr. Speaker, this is something that this Congress can adjust and 
affect right now. We can remove the stranglehold that Vladimir Putin 
holds over Ukraine and, indeed, over the entirety of Eastern Europe, 
and we can do it with the passage of this bill today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank my colleague on the Rules Committee 
for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the rule for both H.R. 6 and H.R. 3301, 
and I will address both of these bills. I am an original cosponsor of 
H.R. 3301 and a recent cosponsor to H.R. 6 after we amended it out of 
our committee.
  As for H.R. 3301, this legislation would create a North American 
energy market with our free trading partners Canada and Mexico.
  If we want to create this market, we need to have statutory 
authority. It is true that the Presidential permitting process dates 
back through many administrations, but to really create this market, we 
need some certainty, and that is why it should be in statute. These 
past administrations were forced to use executive orders, but Congress 
has failed to act. Congress has the duty to regulate the commerce of 
the United States, and cross-border energy infrastructure projects fall 
well within that space. Unfortunately, cross-border decisions have now 
fallen victim to election cycles and political considerations. H.R. 
3301 will resolve these issues and those proposed by the amendments 
debated here today.
  Let me say that I wish we had an open rule. Some of the amendments 
considered by the Rules Committee I would have liked to have voted for, 
but let's not take that away from the quality of these two pieces of 
legislation.
  H.R. 3301 provides for an environmental review of the cross-border 
segment of the pipeline. The entire length of the pipeline is reviewed 
for environmental impacts under existing law. Any time a pipeline 
crosses Federal lands, waters, endangered habitats, a National 
Environmental Policy Act review--also known as ``NEPA''--must be 
completed by the Federal Government. Otherwise, the environmental 
permit must come from the State environmental agency if it is within 
the State. There are more than 40,000 miles of pipeline in the U.S. 
that have been constructed with in-depth environmental reviews. This 
will continue to be the case. H.R. 3301 doesn't take anything away 
except the State Department only has to deal with their responsibility 
in its coming from Canada to the United States or from Mexico to the 
United States or vice versa. There will be environmental reviews by 
Federal agencies and State agencies, and this will continue to be the 
case.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Also, this bill doesn't deal with the 
Keystone XL. Pending applications for permits are grandfathered into 
the current process, and as a fail-safe, we have pushed the effective 
date of the legislation back to July 1 of 2016. This legislation isn't 
about Keystone no matter how badly opponents want to make it. It is 
about future projects and how to meet the energy needs of the 21st 
century.
  Let me talk about H.R. 6. H.R. 6 would actually quantify how this 
should be done on exporting LNG, and most of those permits are in 
Louisiana and Texas. Most of the responsibility is with the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, and they take 12 to 18 months to do 
the environmental reviews. The Department of Energy's only 
responsibility is if it is in the national interest to export LNG. We 
are going to keep that in the law, but we want to make sure they give a 
30-day response because they have actually already had a possible 18 
months to review these applications.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I have very little to add to what my 
colleague from Texas just said.
  I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want my colleagues to understand why I think we should reject this 
rule. Let me just mention two amendments that were germane and that 
were brought to the Rules Committee by our colleague from California 
(Mr. Garamendi).
  One amendment clarifies that a viable merchant marine is in the 
public interest and should be taken into consideration when processing 
applications under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act. The other grants 
priority to the processing of approvals for LNG facilities that will be 
supplied with or will export LNG by U.S. flag vessels.
  These are, basically, two amendments that are germane to this bill 
that would strengthen our shipping industry, and they were ruled out of 
order. For no reason, they were just randomly ruled out of order. Those 
are the kinds of things that Members of Congress do not have an 
opportunity to vote on when you close the process. Again, this is the 
most closed Congress in the history of our country--with more closed 
rules than any other Congress in history. So the tendency of this 
leadership, notwithstanding what the Speaker promised, which was to 
have a more open and transparent process, has been to become the most 
closed Congress in history.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question, 
and if

[[Page 10761]]

we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule 
to bring up legislation that mirrors the bipartisan measure that 
overwhelmingly passed the Senate this month. It takes aim at some of 
the VA's most pressing problems, including the expansion of veterans' 
access to care, holding VA officials accountable, and increasing 
medical personnel and needed facilities.
  This issue of the VA is something that we need to address. It is 
important, and it is something on which, I think, there is bipartisan 
agreement that we ought to focus on, and our use on this floor would be 
better spent dealing with that.
  To discuss this proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the Congresswoman from 
Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick).

                              {time}  1300

  Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4841, the 
bill I introduced to overhaul the VA. The Senate has passed this 
legislation, and now, we must act swiftly and pass the Veterans' Access 
to Care Through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act of 2014 
without delay.
  Over the past several weeks, the House Veterans' Affairs Committee 
has held hearing after hearing on the multitude of issues that plague 
the VA. These hearings have covered everything from the gaming 
strategies to hide long patient wait times and bonuses received by VA 
executives, to capacity problems in the VA health system, and outdated 
appointment scheduling software.
  These hearings clearly demonstrate that the VA needs an overhaul, and 
H.R. 4841 seeks to accomplish this. Our veterans have sacrificed so 
much for us. We have a moral obligation to ensure that sweeping reforms 
are implemented across the VA, making it an organization that exists 
with one purpose: to serve our veterans.
  As lawmakers, we cannot address these multiple issues through 
piecemeal legislation. We must pass legislation that addresses the 
patient access crisis, manages patient care, and holds employees 
accountable.
  H.R. 4841 addresses patient access by expediting the hiring of more 
VA health care providers and authorizes leases for 26 more health care 
facilities. It allows our rural veterans who have waited too long for 
appointments to see a doctor in their community.
  It improves access to mobile vet centers for our rural veterans and 
expands access to survivors of military sexual assault. It strengthens 
partnerships between the VA and the Indian Health Services, an 
arrangement that is successfully working on the Navajo Nation in my 
district.
  This bill addresses the VA's outdated appointment scheduling system 
and outdated IT infrastructure through a technology task force. It 
prohibits the falsification of data to report patient wait times and 
mandates transparency by requiring the VA to publish patient wait times 
and data that measures the quality of care at all VA medical 
facilities.
  It holds employees accountable by giving the Secretary the authority 
to immediately fire senior executives who fail to serve veterans.
  This bill even helps our student veterans receive instate tuition at 
public colleges and universities and extends GI benefits to surviving 
spouses.
  This bill is truly an overhaul of the way our veterans access care, 
of the way the VA manages care, and of the VA culture.
  I will fight for the provisions in H.R. 4841 in the conference 
committee that convenes later today. However, a conference committee is 
not needed if the House passes this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Black). The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
  Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. The Senate overwhelmingly agreed that these reforms 
are necessary, and now, the House must act without delay to make these 
sweeping reforms law.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The fact of the matter is that a conference committee is meeting on 
this very issue. In fact, they are having their first meeting this 
afternoon.
  The issues of access, the issues of accountability for VA personnel 
who have not held themselves to high standards, those are provisions 
that have already passed the floor of this House, some on suspension 
and some under a rule.
  These bills are before the conference committee with the Senate. It 
is appropriate that they be acted upon expeditiously, but in no way 
does defeating the previous question enhance that flexibility or the 
rapidity with which those questions are taken up.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I will insert into the Record the Statement of Administration Policy 
on H.R. 3301, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


          H.R. 3301--North American Energy Infrastructure Act

       (Rep. Upton, R-Michigan, and 20 cosponsors, June 24, 2014)

       The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3301, which would 
     require the specified Secretary to issue a ``certificate of 
     crossing'' for any cross-border segment of an oil pipeline 
     (Secretary of State) or electric transmission facility 
     (Secretary of Energy) within 120 days after the completion of 
     the environmental review, unless the Secretary finds that the 
     cross-border pipeline or electric transmission facility ``is 
     not in the public interest of the United States.''
       The bill's 120-day approval requirement would circumvent 
     the current authority for issuing Presidential Permits for 
     cross-border pipelines and transmission facilities provided 
     by Executive Orders 13337 and 10485, as amended, which allow 
     for the full consideration of the complex issues raised by 
     the building of such infrastructure. That process dates back 
     through many Administrations and has effectively addressed 
     cross-border permitting decisions in a manner that serves the 
     national interest.
       H.R. 3301 would impose an unreasonable deadline that would 
     curtail the thorough consideration of the issues involved, 
     which could result in serious security, safety, foreign 
     policy, environmental, economic, and other ramifications. By 
     preventing the opportunity for the necessary assessment of 
     all factors relevant to the national interest, the bill would 
     create significant policy risks and create legal uncertainty 
     for permitting applicants. Additionally, the bill would 
     prevent assessment of whether modifications to border-
     crossing pipelines or electric transmission facilities are in 
     the national interest, which is provided for through the 
     current process.
       H.R. 3301 would also raise serious trade implications by 
     eliminating the current statutory requirement that the 
     Department of Energy authorize orders for exports and imports 
     of natural gas to and from Canada and Mexico.
       Because H.R. 3301 would circumvent longstanding and proven 
     processes for determining whether cross-border pipelines and 
     electric transmission facilities are in the national interest 
     by removing the Presidential permitting requirement, if 
     presented to the President, his senior advisors would 
     recommend that he veto this bill.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Let me just read one line here. It says:

       Because H.R. 3301 would circumvent longstanding and proven 
     processes for determining whether cross-border pipelines and 
     electric transmission facilities are in the natural interest 
     by removing the Presidential permitting requirement, if 
     presented to the President, his senior advisors would 
     recommend that he veto this bill.

  So we are discussing--we are spending time here discussing a bill 
that will probably not be brought up at all in the Senate and will be 
vetoed by the White House. So this is just kind of an exercise in 
futility, when we should be here trying to figure out how to deal with 
some of the bigger issues like climate change.
  If you don't want to talk about climate change, let's talk about 
increasing the minimum wage. If you don't want to talk about that, 
let's talk about extending unemployment insurance for people who have 
lost their jobs.
  If you don't want to talk about that, let's talk about immigration 
reform. Let's talk about something that actually matters, something 
that--quite frankly, some of the things that are urgent for us to focus 
on.
  Instead, we get these bills that are being brought before us, under a 
restrictive process, again, which is in

[[Page 10762]]

keeping with the mindset of this Congress, which is closed.
  Notwithstanding what the Speaker said, that there would be this new 
commitment to openness, this is now the most closed Congress in 
history.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. 
Sinema).
  Ms. SINEMA. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my colleague from 
Arizona's motion because Arizona veterans demand immediate action.
  At the Phoenix VA, managers and employees placed veterans on secret 
lists where they had to wait months to see a doctor. Even more 
horrifying are new whistleblower allegations that veterans died while 
waiting on these lists and that VA managers ordered the records altered 
to cover up these deaths.
  This is not just immoral; it is criminal. Those responsible for this 
disaster must be prosecuted and held accountable. They should also take 
responsibility for what they have done to our veterans.
  I call on the Phoenix VA management currently on administrative leave 
to resign immediately and return the bonuses they received over the 
past 2 years and the pay they have received while on administrative 
leave.
  Ongoing audits by the VA and the VA Office of Inspector General 
reveal systemic problems with wait times, with the scheduling process, 
and with the honesty and integrity of the system.
  In a letter to the President sent yesterday, the Office of Special 
Counsel revealed that the VA's procedures for responding to 
whistleblower disclosures are woefully inadequate. This is totally 
unacceptable.
  VA and Congress must take action to provide our veterans the care 
they need now, recoup bonuses paid to VA executives who fraudulently 
manipulated the data, and fire VA executives responsible for these 
inexcusable actions.
  I appreciate the bipartisan work taking place to reform the VA and to 
provide our veterans the care that they need. In fact, I cosponsored 
and voted for both House bills.
  The bottom line is that there is bipartisan legislation that can help 
our veterans get the care they need and hold bad actors accountable 
right now, so that is why I support this motion to send a bill to the 
President's desk as quickly as possible.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Again, access and accountability are parts of the VA reform bills 
that have been passed by this House and currently that is in 
conference. Even today, they are having their first meeting of the 
conference committee.
  I, too, wish the administration would fire someone for incompetence. 
Whether it be at the VA, the Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue 
Service, healthcare.gov, the list of incompetencies grows larger every 
day and just begs the question: What do you have to do to get fired by 
the Obama administration?
  I have got to share with you something else. This Statement of 
Administration Policy--and this is the first time I have seen it here 
as we are presenting the bill today--but it closes with the statement: 
``Because H.R. 3301''--that is the permitting bill--``would circumvent 
longstanding and proven processes.''
  Proven processes? These processes are broken. That is why the 
legislation is necessary--because the administration refuses to act.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I find it somewhat interesting here that my colleague from Texas is 
all upset about the slowness of the permitting process when it comes to 
these pipelines.
  I think that there is bipartisan concern about the way the VA is 
currently being managed. I think there is bipartisan concern that we 
ought to make sure that the system is more responsive to our veterans.
  Mrs. Kirkpatrick came to the floor and offered a statement, which 
will be the subject of the previous question, that I think makes a lot 
of sense. I mean, what she is talking about is a bill that is the 
companion to the one that Senator McCain introduced in the United 
States Senate.
  I am a little kind of bothered by the fact that there is not more 
impatience on the other side of the aisle to fix this VA system, to get 
it right. Again, you could point all the fingers you want at the 
administration, and they are trying to get it right.
  There are things that we can do right now to more aggressively and 
quickly address some of these issues, and that is what Mrs. Kirkpatrick 
was talking about. That is what Ms. Sinema was talking about. That is 
what Senator McCain is talking about in the United States Senate, 
Senator Sanders as well.
  That, to me, seems urgent. We ought to do this right now, and to kind 
of use the excuse that, well, we passed a couple of these things and 
maybe there will be a conference committee that will resolve all this 
stuff--let's just do it. Let's just get this done.
  Again, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question, so that we can bring up the very legislation that 
Mrs. Kirkpatrick and Ms. Sinema talked about.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Again, I would reiterate that the veterans bills passed by this 
House, passed by the House of Representatives, have now gone to 
conference with the Senate. The most expeditious way to accomplish the 
goals the gentleman referred to is for the conference committee to give 
its report and bring that back to the floor of the House.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me just--I mean, there is just so much that I want to say here, 
given the fact that there is so much that we need to do to help the 
American people, and we are not doing it in this Congress.
  We are bringing up kind of the same old-same old energy bills that 
are going nowhere, that don't respond to the needs of our country, and 
certainly don't address the issue of climate change.
  My colleague talks about how the process is broken. He says the 
Keystone XL has taken 5 years and counting and that shows that the 
process is broken.
  Let me just say that that project is a highly controversial project, 
with significant environmental impacts. Because the Obama 
administration took the time to do the environmental review, we have 
more information on the project's impacts on climate change.
  The State Department's final environmental review found that tar 
sands produce significantly more carbon pollution than conventional 
oil, that building the Keystone XL pipeline could allow more rapid 
expansion of the tar sands, and that this expansion would exacerbate 
climate change. That is something that we can't afford to do.
  Last month, our Nation's leading climate scientists released the 
country's third national climate assessment. The report confirms that 
climate change is real, is being caused by humans, and is already 
harming communities across America.
  The report tells us the scientific evidence is unequivocal. The 
impacts are being felt in every region. They are growing more urgent, 
and they are going to get worse if we don't act.
  A record drought is continuing to destroy crops in California. 
Torrential rains have flooded Florida. Wildfires are getting more 
intense. Coastal areas are being inundated as sea levels rise.
  No sector of our economy, from oyster hatcheries on the West Coast to 
maple syrup producers in New England, are untouched. Business as usual 
is no longer an option. The same old-same old doesn't work.
  If we are serious about taking action on climate change, saying no to 
the Keystone XL pipeline, to me, is an obvious place to start; and the 
pipeline would produce more carbon pollution than any other project 
pending in the United States.
  The additional carbon pollution from this single project is 
equivalent to

[[Page 10763]]

building seven new coal-fired power plants.
  Now, if we can't say ``no'' to this project on climate grounds, where 
are we going to draw the line?

                              {time}  1315

  So I commend the Obama administration for taking the time to get this 
decision right.
  The environment matters. For years, my friends on the other side of 
the aisle ignored the environment. I mean, it was always that the 
environmentalists were the enemy. You know, being good stewards of the 
environment was somehow a bad thing to do. Well, look at what is 
happening around us.
  So I think it is time that there be a change of attitude, and it is 
time that we actually bring serious legislation to the floor that deals 
with, how do we meet our energy needs but how do we also deal with this 
issue of climate change?
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Speaker, the oil produced in the Province of Alberta belongs to 
the country of Canada. Yes, it may traverse the United States, if the 
Keystone pipeline is built. But if it is not, the oil will traverse 
western Canada and be shipped to China. The oil will still be burned. 
The carbon will still go into the air.
  Who would you rather have in charge of the refining process: 
refineries in China who do not have the environmental controls, or 
refineries in Texas who do?
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the 
text of the amendment that I am going to offer if we defeat the 
previous question 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 Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Again, I just want to remind my colleagues what we would like to 
bring up. If we defeat the previous question, we will bring up an 
amendment to the rule that brings legislation forward that mirrors the 
bipartisan measure that overwhelmingly passed in the Senate this month 
dealing with some of the VA's most pressing problems. So that is why 
defeating the previous question would be important.
  Let me just close by saying, again, on the environmental issues here, 
listening to my friend from Texas talk about the issue of climate 
change, all you hear is excuses why we can't do something, and why we 
need to do the same old-same old.
  I have to tell you that if we don't deal with this issue sooner, 
rather than later, then history will not look kindly upon us. We may 
not have a history in the future if we don't address this issue sooner, 
rather than later.
  This is a big deal. This is a big deal. This is something that we 
ought to be talking about on the House floor at this very moment. If 
you want to talk about an energy policy, we ought to also talk about 
climate change. But yet there is nothing. There is nothing. It really 
is appalling.
  And the legislation that is being brought before us today is going 
nowhere. So we are wasting our time talking about bills that are going 
nowhere. They are going nowhere in the Senate. The White House has 
already issued a veto threat. So we are just kind of spinning our 
wheels here.
  Instead, maybe we could use this week to do something productive. If 
you defeat the previous question, we could actually bring up the 
Senate-passed VA bill and get that done and help our veterans. And get 
it done quickly. Maybe that would be a good thing to do. Maybe that 
would make this week worth it, rather than a week spent talking about 
things that are going nowhere.
  So with that, Madam Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues again to 
vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on 
the rule. And I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, if it were really true that the actions we take here 
don't mean anything, then why did the Department of Energy suddenly 
release one of the export licenses merely on the fact that the Energy 
and Commerce Committee held a hearing on H.R. 6, the bill offered by 
the gentleman from Colorado, Cory Gardner, to require a time certain 
for the export license to be decided upon?
  Why does the gentleman from New Mexico, Senator Udall, have very 
similar legislation pending over in the Senate? I would say this is one 
proposal that perhaps has a very good chance of becoming law, even in 
divided governments, such as we have today.
  On the issue of the previous question, I would remind the body that 
the most expeditious way to get to a solution for the problems that are 
being experienced by our Nation's veterans within the VA system is for 
the conference committee to proceed.
  If we pass something today, it still goes back over to the Senate. It 
doesn't expedite a darn thing. The conference committee is the correct 
way for that to go. So I do urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the 
previous question.
  Today's rule provides for the consideration of two key pieces of 
legislation to move our country toward a more energy-independent 
environment. I certainly thank Chairman Upton and Cory Gardner for 
producing bipartisan pieces of legislation to address real problems 
that have arisen in the permitting process, when politics are injected 
into what should be a merit-based system.
  H.R. 6, the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, and H.R. 
3301, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act, are thoughtful 
pieces of legislation that deserve the support of this body.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 636 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. 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. 
     4841) to improve the access of veterans to medical services 
     from the Department of Veterans Affairs, 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 Veterans' Affairs, the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Oversight, and the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. 
     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. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 4841.

  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

[[Page 10764]]

  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 184, not voting 28, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 341]

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

                               NAYS--184

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

                             NOT VOTING--28

     Campbell
     Cantor
     Carney
     Crowley
     Edwards
     Fitzpatrick
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Kingston
     Lankford
     Lewis
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Meeks
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Nunnelee
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Rangel
     Rush
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stutzman
     Velazquez
     Williams

                              {time}  1347

  Messrs. GARCIA, GALLEGO, AL GREEN of Texas, and Ms. PINGREE of Maine 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. CAPITO, Messrs. LUETKEMEYER and TIBERI changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 221, 
noes 186, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 342]

                               AYES--221

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

                               NOES--186

     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline

[[Page 10765]]


     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     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
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Campbell
     Cantor
     Carney
     Crowley
     Fitzpatrick
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Kingston
     Lankford
     Loebsack
     Meeks
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Nunnelee
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Rangel
     Rush
     Serrano
     Smith (WA)
     Velazquez
     Walberg
     Williams

                              {time}  1355

  Messrs. CUMMINGS and DAVID SCOTT of Georgia changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BARBER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  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.

                          ____________________