[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10328-10337]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2822, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 
 ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016; PROVIDING 
 FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2042, RATEPAYER PROTECTION ACT OF 2015; AND 
PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM JUNE 26, 2015, THROUGH 
                              JULY 6, 2015

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 333 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 333

       Resolved, That (a) 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. 2822) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived.
       (b) During consideration of the bill for amendment--
       (1) each amendment, other than amendments provided for in 
     paragraph (2), shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent and 
     shall not be subject to amendment except as provided in 
     paragraph (2);
       (2) no pro forma amendment shall be in order except that 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 
     10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of 
     debate; and
       (3) the chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord 
     priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member 
     offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read.
       (c) When the committee rises and reports the bill back to 
     the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 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. 
     2042) to allow for judicial review of any final rule 
     addressing carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil 
     fuel-fired electric utility generating units before requiring 
     compliance with such rule, and to allow States to protect 
     households and businesses from significant adverse effects on 
     electricity ratepayers or reliability. 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. 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 114-20. 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 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 without intervention of any 
     point of order to consider concurrent resolutions providing 
     for adjournment during the month of July, 2015.
       Sec. 4.  On any legislative day during the period from June 
     26, 2015, through July 6, 2015--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 5.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.

                              {time}  1245

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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

[[Page 10329]]

from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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. BURGESS. 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 Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 333 provides for a rule to 
consider important bills that deal with our environment: the first, 
H.R. 2822, the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2016; and the second, H.R. 2042, 
the Ratepayer Protection Act of 2015. Each bill will be provided the 
standard 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the majority and the 
minority. Further, on each bill, the minority is granted the standard 
motion to recommit, a chance to amend the legislation one final time 
prior to its passage.
  As with nearly all regular order appropriations bills that have come 
to the floor under the Republican leadership, the Interior-EPA bill 
will be considered under a modified open rule, allowing every Member of 
this body the opportunity to come to the floor and offer amendments to 
the bill that comply with the House budget rules.
  H.R. 2042, the Ratepayer Protection Act, is given a structured rule 
under the resolution before us today, with the Rules Committee making 
in order five of the eight amendments offered during consideration of 
the bill last evening. Of the amendments made in order, one is 
bipartisan, three were offered by Democrats, and one was offered by a 
Republican.
  H.R. 2822, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2016, provides funding for 
both the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection 
Agency. This bill provides funding for many of the national parks and 
recreational facilities throughout the United States. The bill includes 
over $30 billion in base funding, decreasing the top line level by $246 
million below fiscal year 2015 and cutting $3 billion from the 
President's budget request.
  This spending reduction is necessary to rein in an out-of-control 
Environmental Protection Agency that is moving at breakneck speed to 
regulate every aspect of our economy. Following the failure of the 
House and Senate Democrats to get the disastrous Waxman-Markey cap-and-
trade legislation to President Obama's desk in 2009, Lisa Jackson and, 
now, Gina McCarthy, both administrators of the Environmental Protection 
Agency, have moved forward with regulatory regimes under the guise of 
the Clean Air Act to go around Congress to regulate carbon after the 
American people explicitly rose up and said do not do this.
  The Energy and Commerce Committee has held countless hearings and 
markups to address the out-of-control efforts by the Environmental 
Protection Agency and has taken over the past few years to push 
President Obama's harmful environmental policies onto a populace that 
has rejected those same policies at the ballot box. From carbon dioxide 
to ozone to every stream, puddle, ditch, pond in America, the 
Environmental Protection Agency will not rest until it has regulatory 
control over every aspect of every life in America.
  The appropriations bill before us is an important step toward reining 
in such a power-hungry agency. The bill contains prohibitions on the 
Department of the Interior's attempts to regulate hydraulic fracturing, 
a process that President Obama's own Environmental Protection Agency 
recently stated has not resulted in any significant environmental or 
health harms. It includes a provision preventing the Environmental 
Protection Agency from proposing new ozone standards until at least 85 
percent of the country is able to meet current standards, which would 
seem to be a reasonable request. It prohibits the Environmental 
Protection Agency from moving forward with new greenhouse gas 
regulations, regulations that the American people have never supported. 
And it prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency from moving 
forward with regulating every stream and pond in the country, an issue 
that the Supreme Court has rejected and that farmers and landowners all 
across America have risen up to oppose.
  Even more than the funding levels in this bill, passing the House 
Interior Appropriations bill will keep the Environmental Protection 
Agency from doing further damage to the United States economy than has 
already been done by this administration. Mr. Speaker, I will just 
point out, we were greeted with the news that in the first quarter of 
this year, the economy actually contracted by 0.2 percent. That is not 
the direction that we need to go.
  The second bill contained in today's rule is H.R. 2042, the Ratepayer 
Protection Act of 2015, which does address the Environmental Protection 
Agency's job-killing carbon rules on existing power plants. The bill 
allows for judicial review of any final rule pertaining to greenhouse 
gas emissions before requiring compliance with such a rule and allows 
States to protect households and businesses from significant adverse 
effects on electricity ratepayers or reliability. This seems like a 
reasonable ask, that the EPA's own rule, which we know will be 
litigated anyway, not go into effect until the courts have had a final 
say on whether or not the Environmental Protection Agency actually 
followed the law.
  The Environmental Protection Agency's proposed regulation on 
greenhouse gases, a regulation that the Democrats couldn't achieve 
through legislation, places different limits on different States, 
allowing the Environmental Protection Agency to pick winners and losers 
in the carbon wars.
  If a State does not comply with the strict guidelines that the 
Environmental Protection Agency sets out for its electricity market, 
then the EPA will force its own Federal plan on the State, driving up 
the cost to ratepayers exponentially.
  The EPA's own estimates of this rule--just the rule, without any 
mention of the other disastrously expensive rules that it is currently 
proposing, such as the ozone regulations--suggest that the carbon rule 
for existing power plants will impose annual costs of $5.5 billion to 
$7.5 billion by 2020, and almost $9 billion by 2030. All of those costs 
will be passed on to every American who pays an electricity bill.
  Of course, as we have seen in previous rules, the Environmental 
Protection Agency consistently underestimates the cost of its rules to 
hide the ball from the American people about the true damage that is 
actually being proposed by the Agency. Outside estimates put the cost 
of this one regulation at upwards of well over $360 billion to almost 
$500 billion between 2017 and 2031. That level of harm to the United 
States economy is insane after seeing such a slow recovery under the 
current President, but it is exactly what Administrator Gina McCarthy 
is proposing.
  State Governors, regulators, and other stakeholders have submitted 
thousands of comments on this rule, explaining how difficult it will be 
to implement and prevent rates from increasing, but those pleas appear 
to have hit a dead end. The Environmental Protection Agency is moving 
forward with these rules, and this bill before us presents one of the 
great opportunities to slow them down before irreversible damage is 
done to the economy.
  Mr. Speaker, the House is moving forward with important legislation 
today to make the government more accountable. I look forward to both 
bills having a full debate on the House floor after the passage of 
today's rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule to allow for consideration of legislation that would reauthorize 
the Export-Import Bank for 7 years. The Export-Import Bank allows 
American businesses to compete in global markets and supports hundreds 
of thousands of jobs.

[[Page 10330]]

  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 Colorado?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, we have one legislative day until the 
expiration of the Export-Import Bank's authorization. We are going to 
get to talk about this EPA rule in a few minutes, but there are many 
Members on my side of the aisle who want to bring forward in the form 
of a previous question, the only procedural way that we can advance 
this important piece of legislation to the floor before the House goes 
home in July, to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.
  Reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank would strengthen our 
Nation's economy. It would provide stability and certainty for American 
businesses. The Export-Import Bank assists tens of thousands of small-
and medium-sized businesses throughout the country. In fact, nearly 90 
percent of Export-Import's transactions are with small businesses, and 
the Bank directly supports 164,000 private sector jobs at over 3,300 
companies.
  In August, I was honored to receive a visit from Export-Import Bank 
President Fred Hochberg, who came to my district to highlight the kinds 
of jobs and companies that Export-Import really benefits and discuss 
ways that it can work together with some of our local Colorado small 
businesses. Together, we visited Boulder-based Droplet Measurement 
Technologies, which was named the Export-Import Bank's 2015 Small 
Business Exporter of the Year for its work in cloud and aerosol 
measurements. Roughly two-thirds of this small company's sales come 
from exports.
  Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of growing business that Export-Import 
Bank supports--export-related jobs so important in today's global 
economy--not just the brand names, not big companies, but the types of 
small-and mid-sized firms that need and deserve our support to compete 
on the global market.
  FiberLok in Fort Collins is a specialty-based printing company in my 
district that provides heat transfer graphic products like computer 
mouses and drink coaster rugs. It is family-owned with 70 employees, 
and about 40 percent of its business is international. They sell 
worldwide, including Germany, Mexico, and the U.K. In 2008, the company 
discovered Export-Import Bank through a direct mail campaign that 
targeted small businesses, and they have been using the small business 
multibuyer credit insurance since, and through that, with the help of 
that program, export sales have grown 15 to 20 percent, and the Bank 
has supported over 2.7 million of FiberLok's exports.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are some on the other side of 
the aisle that have a philosophical problem with the existence of the 
charter of the authorization for this Bank. If that is the case, surely 
unilateral disarmament is not the solution. Perhaps instruct our trade 
negotiators to remove backdoor subsidies at other export-import banks 
that other nations have, but as long as these types of efforts are 
permitted under WTO and trade rules, and as long as other nations 
support the export economy in their countries through programs like the 
Export-Import Bank, why would we want to unilaterally disarm? It makes 
no sense and puts American businesses and American exporters at a 
disadvantage and would lead to the outsourcing of even more jobs 
overseas.
  Financing assistance from this Bank--which, incidentally, costs zero 
money to taxpayers--helps ensure that U.S. companies are competing on a 
level playing field. Canada, China, and Japan, over 60 other nations, 
have similar banks that extend even more export financing to their 
businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, there is strong, bipartisan support for the renewal of 
the Bank's charter. I urge every Member who supports that to help 
defeat the previous question so we can offer our amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the 
great State of California (Ms. Maxine Waters), to discuss the previous 
question and the Export-Import Bank.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank 
the gentleman from Colorado, as well as Leader Pelosi and Whip Hoyer, 
for continuing to fight for the survival of the Export-Import Bank.
  Mr. Speaker, with just 1 day left for Congress to act before the Ex-
Im Bank shuts down, I am shocked that my Republican colleagues are 
planning to leave town without even considering legislation to review 
its charter. Democrats will not sit idly by. That is why I rise today 
to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question in order to force 
a vote on legislation sponsored by myself, Mr. Heck, Ms. Moore, Mr. 
Hoyer, and nearly every other Democrat in this House to renew and 
reform the Export-Import Bank's charter for the long term.
  Over the past 5 years, the Export-Import Bank has created or 
sustained an estimated 1.3 million jobs, and it has returned $6.9 
billion to the American people over the past two decades. But next 
Tuesday, that record of success will be stopped in its tracks. The 
Export-Import Bank will stop creating jobs and supporting our small 
businesses. It will stop returning profits to the Treasury, and it will 
stop helping to make our businesses more competitive.
  Failure to act hands countries like China, Russia, and countless 
others that have their own version of the bank a significant victory--
at the hands of American workers' products and businesses. But we 
haven't given up yet. Today we are giving the broad base of Democrats 
and Republicans who support the Bank an opportunity to cast a vote in 
favor of keeping this engine of job creation and economic growth alive.
  Last week my Republican colleagues who support the Bank failed to 
stand up for its survival. But with just 1 more day for Congress to 
save the Bank from shutting down, I am afraid that those who claim to 
support the Export-Import Bank but refuse to stand up and do so do not 
truly support the Bank or the jobs it creates.
  Mr. Speaker, businesses need to know that our government will stand 
up for them, not work to undermine them.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holding). The time of the gentlewoman 
has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 20 
seconds.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to 
heed the advice of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, all 
of whom supported the Export-Import Bank.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to myself.
  Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Chair that the issue under 
consideration today before the House of Representatives is H. Res. 333, 
which provides for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2822, making 
appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for 
other purposes; and further providing for the consideration of H.R. 
2042, to allow for judicial review of any final rule addressing carbon 
dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric utility 
generating units before requiring compliance with such rule, and to 
allow States to protect households and businesses from significant 
adverse effects on electricity ratepayers or reliability.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend, Dr. Burgess, has just made an observation, 
that this

[[Page 10331]]

resolution is about the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 
Subcommittee Appropriations bill. I will tell Mr. Speaker, as you 
know--and the American people, I am sure, know--that that Agency is 
funded through September 30 of this year, which means we have months to 
go before it will run out of funds.
  The other bill that he mentions, of course, as you know, is about a 
proposal, not a rule. It may be a rule at some point in time, but it is 
a proposal which has no absolute definite need to be done today or next 
week or next month.
  However, Mr. Speaker, the Export-Import Bank, if we do not act by 
tomorrow, loses its authority to loan money or to support--not to loan 
money, but to support the selling of goods from America by American 
workers to those abroad.
  We just went through a trade debate which was about jobs and whether 
or not it was going to undermine jobs in America. Now, my previous 
colleague, Ms. Waters, mentioned President Reagan, she mentioned 
President Bush, and she mentioned President Clinton. But the person who 
says we are going to lose jobs if we don't pass the Export-Import Bank 
is the Speaker of this House, Mr. Speaker, John Boehner of Ohio. He 
says, if we don't pass this, we are immediately going to start losing 
jobs--John Boehner, Speaker of the House from Ohio.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring up H.R. 
1031--a bill to protect thousands of American jobs by preventing the 
Export-Import Bank from shutting down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise that all time has 
been yielded for the purpose of debate only.
  Does the gentleman from Texas yield for the purpose of this unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas does not yield. 
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, again, I will just remind the House that 
what is under consideration is a rule resolution, H. Res. 333, for 
consideration of the appropriations bill for the Department of the 
Interior and H.R. 2042 to allow for judicial review of any final rule 
addressing carbon dioxide emissions.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Heck), a champion of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank for the 
purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
House bring up H.R. 1031, which is within its power to do--a bill to 
protect thousands of American jobs by preventing the shutting down of 
the Export-Import Bank.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Texas yield for the 
purpose of this unanimous consent request?
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate my earlier announcement 
that all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only, and I do not 
yield time for any other purpose.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas does not yield. 
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Grijalva) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House 
bring up H.R. 1031--a bill to protect thousands of American jobs by 
preventing the Export-Import Bank from being shut down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Texas does not yield for that purpose. Therefore, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Ashford) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. ASHFORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House 
bring up H.R. 1031--a bill to protect thousands of American jobs by 
preventing the Export-Import Bank from shutting down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al 
Green) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the House bring up H.R. 1031--a bill to protect 
thousands of American jobs by preventing the Export-Import Bank from 
shutting down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Tonko) for the purpose of a unanimous consent.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring 
up H.R. 1031--a bill to protect thousands of American jobs by 
preventing the Export-Import Bank from shutting down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Sherman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House 
bring up H.R. 1031--a bill to protect hundreds of thousands of American 
jobs by preventing the shutdown of the Ex-Im Bank.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Maxine Waters), the ranking member of the Committee on Financial 
Services, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the House bring up H.R. 1031--a bill to protect thousands of 
American jobs by preventing the Export-Import Bank from shutting down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Brendan F. Boyle) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, as you might be 
able to predict, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring up H.R. 
1031--a bill that would protect thousands of American jobs by 
preventing the shutdown of the Export-Import Bank.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, we were hoping at least Mr. Boyle's would be 
accepted. But, Mr. Speaker, I yield to another Member of Congress from 
California (Mr. Cardenas), a leader in the fight to reauthorize the 
Export-Import Bank, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House 
bring up H.R. 1031--a bill to protect thousands of American jobs by 
preventing the Export-Import Bank from shutting down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, for the 
purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House 
bring up H.R. 1031--a bill to protect thousands of American jobs by 
preventing the Export-Import Bank from shutting down. It is most 
important in my district.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to myself.
  Again, I just want to underscore that the issue under consideration 
on the

[[Page 10332]]

House floor today is to consider H. Res. 333, to provide for 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 2822, making appropriations for the 
Department of the Interior, environment and related agencies, and to 
provide for consideration of the bill, H.R. 2042, to allow for judicial 
review of any final rule addressing carbon dioxide emissions.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Heck), a leader in the effort to reauthorize the 
Export-Import Bank.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am going to get an enormous 
frustration off my chest today, the obsessive-compulsive focus of this 
Chamber on the Ts: trade, trade promotion authority, Trans-Pacific 
Partnership, and trade adjustment authority. This view that we can 
distill our entire Nation's future trading prospects to one trade 
agreement or the TPA leading up to it is wrongheaded, it is myopic, and 
it does not serve our self-interest. The fact of the matter is, in 
order for us to be successful in a global economy, we must be much more 
complex and nuanced in our view.

                              {time}  1315

  Infrastructure--we don't even spend two-thirds of the money generated 
by the harbor maintenance tax, which is generated by trade, on 
improving the ports so that we can have more trade. Where is that 
issue?
  The International Monetary Fund, 5 years hanging loose the reform. We 
are Nero; Rome is burning. No reforms to the IMF--and what is the 
consequence? This is real. This isn't abstract. I didn't make this up. 
China forms the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank; Brazil, Russia, 
India, China, and South Africa form the BRICS Bank--all of this while 
we sit and watch Rome burn.
  Lastly, the Export-Import Bank is a deficit-cutting, job-creating 
machine--$6 billion to reduce our deficit, 164,000 thousand jobs in the 
country just last year. Ninety-five percent, as has so often been said, 
of the world's population lives outside the borders of the great 
country of the United States of America.
  If we want to keep our middle class, we are going to have to learn 
how to sell into their middle class and engage in global trade, but it 
is more complex than just one trade agreement or IMF or what we do with 
the infrastructure investment. It is all of these things.
  Yes, at the top of that list, the Export-Import Bank, a deficit-
cutting, job-creating machine, we need to reauthorize the Export-Import 
Bank--1 day left--because the layoff notices are going out next week.
  People will lose that which they value more than anything in life, 
save their family; and that is the opportunity to be self-sufficient 
and provide for themselves.
  Ladies and gentlemen, I beseech you, vote against the previous 
question, bring up H.R. 1031, reauthorize the Export-Import Bank in the 
name of cutting deficits and creating jobs.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, you have heard what we will bring up if we 
defeat the previous question. You will now hear what this body under 
this rule has chosen to consider instead--a bill that, as Mr. Hoyer 
said, could be done any time and a bill that is bad.
  To explain that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Grijalva), the distinguished member of the Committee on Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  I rise in opposition to House Resolution 333.
  The Interior Appropriations bill is a disaster, not only because it 
would continue the pattern of underfunding core Department of Interior 
programs and ignoring climate change, but also because it is littered 
with partisan legislative riders that don't belong in an appropriations 
bill.
  This rule does nothing to improve the bill, and even includes waivers 
to protect these illegitimate riders. Republicans make the rules, but 
through this appropriations bill, they seek to break their own rules 
and sneak significant legislative changes into this spending bill.
  The riders protected by this rule would make species extinction more 
likely, close the courthouse door to American citizens, and grease the 
wheels for Big Business to make private profits from public resources. 
These are all terrible ideas, but they are terrible ideas that should 
be considered in the Natural Resources Committee, not snuck into an 
Interior spending bill.
  I have the honor of serving as the ranking member of the Natural 
Resources Committee, and I would tell my colleagues: we have hearing 
rooms and a full staff, and if you support delisting endangered species 
or prohibiting judicial review of resource decisions or giving away 
public resources to wealthy companies, you should put your name on a 
bill and come over to 1324 in the Longworth Building for a hearing.
  While I cannot speak for the chairman of the Natural Resources 
Committee, as ranking member, I cannot agree to cede jurisdiction over 
management of our Federal natural resources to appropriators, and I 
cannot support a rule designed to allow it.
  Even though the best available science indicates otherwise, section 
121 of the underlying bill would direct the Secretary to reissue two 
final rules removing wolves in Wyoming and the Great Lakes from the 
endangered species list.
  Another rider would make it more difficult to protect the habitat of 
the threatened northern long-eared bat. We aren't the experts. We 
should not interfere with the species listing and recovery processes at 
all, let alone interfere through an appropriations bill where the 
merits of such proposals cannot be given any appropriate consideration. 
This is why the House rules prohibit these riders, and this rule should 
not protect them.
  Another awful rider would block the Fish and Wildlife Service from 
cracking down on illegal ivory trade within the U.S. Poaching of 
elephants and trafficking of illegal ivory is currently at an all-time 
25-year high here in the U.S., and the U.S. is one of the major markets 
for the sale of illegal ivory.
  Section 120 of the underlying bill would restrict our ability to 
regulate the trade of elephant ivory in the U.S. and will directly 
contribute to elephant slaughter. House rules prohibit these kinds of 
sneaky, partisan riders in spending bills for a good reason, and we 
should not adopt a rule to protect these provisions.
  If these provisions are so toxic that they can only be passed by 
waiving House rules, they shouldn't be passed at all.
  Either way, the question should be considered in the authorizing 
committee, not in an appropriations bill and not in this rule.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from Arizona that this 
appropriations bill is coming to the floor, as has been the custom 
during the Republican majority, under a modified open rule, which means 
that any Member is able to bring an amendment to the floor of the House 
and have it heard.
  This, of course, includes limitation amendments that would be heard 
at the end of the reading of the bill that would allow for the striking 
of any of the provisions that he finds objectionable. Then all that is 
necessary for the gentleman to do is to convince 218 Members of this 
body to vote with him on an amendment, and he will be able to 
accomplish his heart's desire.
  A modified open rule is a good process, and it does allow the will of 
the House to be heard on this bill. I look forward to us affirming the 
previous question, passing the rule to allow the bill to be heard, and 
then we can get on to the business at hand.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think the problem with the idea of the gentleman from Texas is that 
the base bill is so bad, it could take this body weeks or months to fix 
it. Meanwhile, we are 1 day away from the Export-Import Bank's 
reauthorization.
  At least let's get that done, and then we are happy to begin the work 
of trying to fix this terrible bill. Although,

[[Page 10333]]

again, it might be more productive just to defeat it, send it back to 
Appropriations, and have them come up with a better base bill.
  I am proud to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As he 
points out, we are 1 legislative day away from the end of the 
authorization of the Ex-Im Bank.
  American businesses are already losing contracts as foreign companies 
must decide whether to structure themselves around American equipment 
or whether to buy equipment from another source. That foreign source 
offers stable export promotion authority financing provided by the 
governments of Germany, Japan, China, et cetera; whereas, we dawdle 
here.
  The purpose of a rule is to decide how the House will devote its time 
here on the floor. The most pressing matter before us is the Export-
Import Bank. That is why we should defeat the rule and focus the House 
on the most pressing matter, and we should allow the House to work its 
will. A majority of this body wants to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank, but 
instead, we are being held hostage by a group inside only one of the 
two caucuses.
  I gave 100 speeches for George McGovern. I am proud of that. We were 
accused of unilateral disarmament being our platform. This is a 
platform for unilateral disarmament because this is a platform that 
says Germany, Japan, and China will provide concessionary financing to 
push their exports, and we will be disarmed in the world of business.
  The Export-Import Bank makes money. The CBO concludes that; generally 
accepted accounting principles conclude that. The enemies of the Bank 
have concocted a fantasy accounting system, and only under that system, 
used nowhere else, is there any argument that the Export-Import Bank 
does not make money.
  We have hundreds of thousands of American jobs at stake. They should 
not be sacrificed on the alter of a new religion. Ayn Rand is not a 
deity; ``Fountainhead'' is not Holy Scripture, and we need to make 
practical decisions in the real world where we face real competition 
from real competitors.
  That is why we need to focus the attention of this House on today's 
most pressing issue, the reauthorization of Ex-Im Bank.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Ashford), a leader in the effort to 
reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.
  Mr. ASHFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  I rise today to express my support for the reauthorization of the 
Export-Import Bank.
  The Ex-Im Bank is an independent, self-sustaining executive branch 
agency with one mission, to foster American job growth by helping 
American companies with the tools they need to compete in the global 
marketplace.
  In short, the Ex-Im Bank provides the business community the 
certainty it needs to compete in overseas markets and grow jobs at 
home.
  Why am I so supportive of the Ex-Im Bank and its reauthorization? In 
my district alone, in the month of May, the Ex-Im Bank provided $3.8 
million worth of Nebraska's export goods into the global marketplace, 
companies as large as Valmont Industries, one of the largest 
manufacturers of center pivot irrigation systems in the world, and 
companies as small as Volcanic Peppers, that in a small kitchen 
produced hot sauce that is exported to Australia.
  In fiscal year 2014, the Ex-Im Bank supported approximately $107 
million in Nebraska exports, 49 percent of which went to Nebraska small 
businesses.
  Since 2007, the Bank has supported $230 million in exports from 52 
Iowa companies and $550 million in exports from 39 Nebraska companies. 
This translates into American private sector jobs in every district of 
this country.
  In real terms, the Ex-Im Bank helps to level the playing field for 
both large and small businesses who export products abroad.
  Simply put, there is no rational reason, Mr. Speaker, for allowing 
American products and American goods to have a disadvantage in the 
global marketplace.
  Congress must reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank immediately, and I am 
committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
make this happen.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear what we would like to do, what 
Democrats would like to do, like the probusiness Members of this House 
would try to do, we want to, with 1 legislative day left, bring forward 
a reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank for the reasons that have 
been made abundantly clear by my Democratic colleagues and I know an 
idea that is shared by many, perhaps less outspoken, Members on your 
side of the aisle who also support reauthorizing the Export-Import 
Bank.
  Let's have a clean vote. If we defeat the previous question, that is 
exactly what we will bring forward, a 7-year authorization that I 
believe will pass this body.
  Now, let's talk about what this House is choosing to do instead under 
these rules--two bills that are not urgent, are not timely, both of 
which would need Presidential vetoes: the Ratepayer Protection Act of 
2015, which I will talk about, which, again, will go nowhere, even if 
it gets out of both chambers, will get a Presidential veto and won't 
have two-thirds in this body to override; and Interior Appropriations, 
which needs to be done, but could be done next week, while we are up 
against a deadline of the expiration of the Export-Import Bank.
  The Ratepayer Protection Act pertains to the recently proposed clean 
power plan, which establishes emission guidelines for States to follow 
in developing plans to control carbon pollution from existing coal and 
natural gas-fired power plants.
  Like so many Presidential initiatives, it stems out of the 
President's legitimate authority to act in areas under his statutory 
authority when this body fails to act.
  I applaud the President for using his existing executive powers on 
immigration. I applaud the President for using his existing executive 
powers for a clean power plan to work with the States and the EPA.

                              {time}  1330

  What this bill would do, however, is suspend the implementation of 
the clean power plan and extend all compliance and submission deadlines 
until a judicial review can be completed, already in process.
  On this point, let me make one thing very clear, that there is no 
existent rule and that the proposed clean power plan is a proposal. 
Let's give the executive branch the opportunity to at least come 
forward with a final proposal before this body decides that it somehow 
wants to invalidate that very proposal.
  I have discussed this proposal with many folks in my district, and 
there are issues that need to be worked out to make this regulation 
feasible. I have talked to and heard from rural electric utilities and 
from many others, and we all want to make sure that ratepayers are not 
detrimentally impacted, but the answer is not to cut the process short.
  That is why developers are actually working with the EPA through a 
public input process, which includes rural electric utilities and 
others, an unprecedented reach of outreach opportunities that the EPA 
is doing, including in my district.
  They are saying that they want to amend this proposed rule to make it 
work better. If a majority of this body doesn't like the final result, 
then it is time to talk about how we want to amend it and how this body 
would rather deal with emissions and carbon reduction.
  There are plenty of other opportunities. Several years ago, this body 
considered a cap-and-trade program. I am

[[Page 10334]]

a cosponsor of a bill with Mr. Delaney that would implement a carbon 
tax and would use the income from that to reduce the corporate tax rate 
and reduce the tax burden on American businesses.
  There are plenty of good ideas out there, but let's at least see what 
the administration and the EPA come up with and then respond to its 
final proposal with meaningful legislation to address our carbon 
emissions.
  Passing this bill now would prematurely undermine the EPA's 
collaborative effort, instead of encouraging them to involve multiple 
stakeholders in reducing carbon emissions. Under current law, the EPA 
is required to develop and implement a Federal plan for any State that 
fails to submit its own State plan.
  This means that the passage of this bill would overturn that existing 
requirement in the Clean Air Act as it pertains to the clean power 
plan, which means the State would find itself in a place in which, if 
it fails to utilize the flexibility this rule provides, it might have a 
plan that they have not been part of forming.
  I urge my colleagues to reflect on a position that not only 
disregards science but that runs in opposition to business, to the 
religious community, and to our national and global security. Congress 
can constructively weigh in on reducing carbon emissions, and I 
encourage this body to do so.
  There are a number of great bills that would provide a statutory 
mechanism to reduce our carbon emissions. Instead of going that route, 
this body is saying that we don't even want to see what the President 
comes up with or what the EPA comes up with. We want to invalidate it 
before they even finalize it. We want to invalidate the hard work of 
listening to rural electric utilities; of listening to ratepayer 
groups; and, instead, throw it all out because, somehow, politicians in 
Washington know better. That is simply not the right answer, and the 
American people will not stand for it.
  Let's talk about the other bill that the Republicans are bringing 
forth under this rule instead of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank--
the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
  First of all, I always try to talk about what is good in a bill. I do 
want to commend the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee 
for including the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, or PILT.
  As a Representative of a district that is 62 percent owned by the 
Federal Government and, therefore, untaxable by our local taxing 
jurisdictions, I know how important it is to ensure the sustainability 
of our county programs, particularly those that affect our Federal 
lands; but much of the remainder of the bill and the reasoning for my 
opposition to it is the drastic approach it takes to nearly every other 
environmental, energy, and animal welfare issue facing our Nation.
  The bill fails to deal with the issue of fire sharing, which is a 
mechanism utilized that takes money from the Forest Service and gives 
it to emergency response systems in the wake of wildfires. This limits 
the Forest Service's resources and capabilities that could be used for 
the protection of the watershed and for the insurance of access and 
accountability of maintenance on Forest Service lands, especially those 
like some in my district that are affected by forest fires.
  This bill sets backward priorities for the Bureau of Land Management, 
funding the continuation and expansion of oil and gas permitting when 
it doesn't facilitate the zoning of solar or wind projects as my 
bipartisan bill with Mr. Gosar would do.
  The National Park Service, facing a backlog of over $11 billion, is 
drastically cut under this bill. The bill also fails to address the 
fact that offshore oil and gas operations require an inspection fee 
while onshore wells do not.
  This bill fails to address the looming expiration of the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund, which helps American citizens, businesses, 
homeowners, and communities protect important lands and resources.
  It also includes, as Mr. Grijalva pointed out, a number of policy 
riders, any one of which would be grounds for a veto by the President 
of the United States. It fails to adequately fund the Environmental 
Protection Agency, and it circumvents its ability to enforce and ensure 
protections granted to critical species under the Endangered Species 
Act.
  This bill needs a lot of work. I suggest we reject it, send it back 
to the Appropriations Committee, and let them come up with a more 
meaningful effort to fund our Department of the Interior, a goal that 
all of us share.
  I also urge my colleagues to reject the Ratepayer Protection Act of 
2015, a bill that seeks to proactively invalidate the process of 
listening, as the Environmental Protection Agency has done, to many 
stakeholders across my district and across this country.
  Instead, Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues to defeat the 
previous question so that, with 1 day remaining, we can move to 
reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, protect over 130,000 American jobs, 
help American small businesses compete in an increasingly global 
economy, and grow our export-related economy in Colorado and across the 
Nation.
  I encourage my colleagues to reject the previous question and reject 
the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  It was 6 years ago this week. I don't know if many people remember 
the activities on the House floor 6 years ago this week, but in June of 
2009, right before we left for the July 4 recess, the then-Speaker of 
the House, Nancy Pelosi, brought forward to this floor a bill.
  The bill was called Waxman-Markey. It was the cap-and-trade bill. The 
bill had come through our Committee on Energy and Commerce. I thought 
it was a dead duck when it left there, but that bill was pushed through 
to the floor at the end of June 2009.
  Madam Speaker, I don't know that I need to remind you that, in 2009, 
right after the 2008 election, the Republicans were deeply in the 
minority. People talked about the fact that the Republicans were so far 
in the minority that 40 years in the wilderness actually sounded like 
the best case scenario for House Republicans; but something happened, 
and it began in that last week of June 2009.
  Now, a lot of people will credit the change in the House majority to 
the President's healthcare law--and, indeed, it was ill-advised; and, 
indeed, it did upset a lot of people very quickly--but prior to that, 
even before we began having the big debates on the Affordable Care 
Act--the big debates on what became ObamaCare--the then-Speaker of the 
House brought to the floor of this House Waxman-Markey.
  When people started to look at it, Waxman-Markey, we started to get 
phone calls. People said: ``I can't sell my house unless the Department 
of Energy certifies it as reaching certain levels of energy efficiency. 
How am I supposed to be able to do that? That is not a free society. 
That is not a free country when I am prohibited from selling the one 
possession that I had used to accumulate dollars in my estate over my 
entire life, and I can't sell it without permission from the Department 
of Energy.''
  People were legitimately asking questions about what this cap-and-
trade bill will do.
  Madam Speaker, I have got to tell you that there are times in this 
body when there is one of those moments when the incandescent lightbulb 
goes off. One of those was last night. We were sitting in the Rules 
Committee, and we were hearing testimony from two Members from 
Kentucky, one in the majority and one in the minority.
  The one in the majority is bringing the bill that we have before us, 
H.R. 2042, the Ratepayer Protection Act. Mr. Whitfield of Kentucky was 
explaining what the bill would do and the protections the bill would 
provide. The other Member from Kentucky, a member of the minority, 
said, because of the failure of the legislative process, the President 
was required to act, and this is part of the President's Climate Action 
Plan.
  What the H? A failure of the legislative process?

[[Page 10335]]

  Madam Speaker, I would submit that the legislative process functioned 
as intended when Speaker Pelosi brought Waxman-Markey to the floor of 
this House and this House passed that bill. We went back to our 
districts that weekend, and I will tell you what we caught.
  We caught unmitigated holy ``you know what'' because people were so 
incensed at the freedoms that Waxman-Markey and the cap-and-trade 
program would take away from them.
  When the gentleman last night said it was a failure of the 
legislative process and that the President had to act, it was exactly 
the performance of the legislative process that delivered us from a 
very bad proposition.
  What happened after that? Because the country was in such a 
convulsion about what the House had done, the visceral and immediate 
reaction of the people of the United States was: ``Hold the phone; we 
don't want what they are doing.''
  The Senate, which was fully invested in passing a cap-and-trade 
bill--you had Senators who thought cap-and-trade was the be-all and 
end-all, and that was the reason they were in the United States 
Senate--didn't bring it up. It never came up for a vote.
  Here was a situation in which the Democrats had--I don't remember 
what--a 55-seat majority on us here in the House of Representatives and 
a 60-vote--filibuster-proof--majority over in the Senate, and they 
couldn't get this done. They couldn't get this done because the people 
said: ``No. No. Don't do this to me.''
  The legislative process worked. The Senate said, ``I haven't got the 
courage to do this right before the 2010 election,'' and the 
proposition died at the end of the session that concluded on December 
31, 2010. I would just submit that that is a good thing.
  Here we have before us a bill today to provide, in some measure, some 
of the protections about things that people were worried about 6 years 
ago, but it is precisely because we were where we were 6 years ago that 
we are now considering a bill that will hold back some of the 
rulemaking authority from the Environmental Protection Agency.
  Madam Speaker, under today's rule, we are providing for the 
consideration of two important bills, bills that prevent the 
Environmental Protection Agency from doing irreversible damage to our 
economy through dozens of ill-advised regulations that Administrator 
McCarthy is looking to push on the American people before President 
Obama leaves the White House in January 2017.
  The bills are thoughtful responses to one of the most egregious 
agencies in the administration, and I look forward to a full debate for 
that reason.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 333 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 6. 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. 
     1031) to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United 
     States, and for other purposes. 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 Financial Services. 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. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 1031.
                                  ____


        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. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Hartzler). 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. POLIS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243, 
nays 181, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 379]

                               YEAS--243

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx

[[Page 10336]]


     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--181

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Clyburn
     Courtney
     Delaney
     Hanna
     Hinojosa
     Kelly (MS)
     Napolitano
     Payne
     Sarbanes

                              {time}  1408

  Mr. CARSON of Indiana changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, June 24th, 2015, I was 
absent during rollcall No. 379. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``nay'' on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 333--Rule 
providing for consideration of both H.R. 2042--Ratepayer Protection Act 
of 2015 and H.R. 2822--Department of the Interior, Environment, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. BARTON was allowed to speak out of order.)


                54th Annual Congressional Baseball Game

  Mr. BARTON. Madam Speaker, I rise with an extremely heavy heart to, 
once again, have to congratulate my good friend Mike Doyle, the manager 
of the Democratic baseball team, for another victory. It is sad, but 
true. Sad, but true.
  On June 11, the Republicans and the Democrats played the Annual 
Congressional Baseball Game. It was a spirited game, but for the 
seventh year in a row, Mr. Doyle's team won. I don't know how to say 
that.
  I will say that our team is back. Mark Walker, our MVP from North 
Carolina, pitched a good game. He struck out Cedric Richmond, which I 
think is probably the first time Cedric has not gotten a hit.
  We had new blood: Mr. Costello, Mr. Moolenaar, and several others. Of 
course, we had our stalwarts: John Shimkus; Kevin Brady; our whip, 
Steve Scalise.
  So we played a good game, but the Democrats deserved to win. They 
beat us, 5-20.
  I will say that it was a pretty low blow to have the President of the 
United States come and interrupt the game, take away our momentum right 
when we had a big rally.
  I am very proud of the Republican team, but I do want to congratulate 
Mike Doyle and the Democrats.
  I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. First off, I want to thank my 
good friend, Joe Barton. Joe, you know, you used the tools that are at 
your disposal.
  This was a great game. It was good. I think all the fans were treated 
to a very competitive game this year. We had almost 10,000 people 
attend the game this year.
  As we all know, the real winners here are our charities. This game 
helps raise money for the Washington Boys & Girls Clubs, the Washington 
Literacy Council, and the Nationals Dream Foundation. I am happy to 
report, after expenses, we were able to write checks in excess of 
$100,000 to each of the three charities. So those are the big winners 
of the game.
  This was a hard-fought game. In the last 3 years that we have played 
this game, our team has made only one error. We made that this game, 
but I think the difference in the score was that we made the plays in 
the field.
  Both pitchers were outstanding. Your new pitcher, Mark, we weren't 
used to that knuckle ball and some of those curves. He kept us off 
balance, and he pitched a brilliant game. I believe you guys actually 
had one more hit than we did. You had six and we had five.
  Cedric Richmond, coming off of shoulder surgery, pitched a gutsy game 
for seven innings. And I should also mention that, after striking out, 
he hit a double over the center fielder's head, just to throw that in.
  I want to also note Joe Donnelly, our first baseman, made some 
unbelievable plays at first base that, I think, saved the game for us.
  And then, as always, anytime I ask Linda Sanchez to put a batting 
helmet on, she gets a hit. So those three individuals share our team 
MVPs.
  Also, there are lots of ways to contribute, and Eric Swalwell stole 
three bases for us and scored. He did it all on the base pads, and he 
deserves some notice for that, too.
  Joe, I just want to say it was a great game. I want to thank you for 
how hard your team fought, and we look forward to a competitive game 
next year.
  We know some day, you know, the shoe will be on the other foot. But 
for the past 7 years, we are kind of enjoying this. So God bless.
  Mr. BARTON. Madam Speaker, I want to thank leadership on both sides:

[[Page 10337]]

our Speaker, John Boehner; our majority leader, Kevin McCarthy; and our 
whip, Steve Scalise, who played in the game. On their side, Ms. Pelosi, 
Mr. Hoyer, and Mr. Clyburn were all there. So both leadership supported 
the game.
  It was a good game. We did raise a lot of money for charity.
  But I will put you on notice, Mike Doyle, the shoe is going to be on 
the other foot next year. Be ready.
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Talk is cheap, Joe. Bring it 
on.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will 
continue.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BURGESS. 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 244, 
noes 178, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 380]

                               AYES--244

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--178

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Capps
     Clarke (NY)
     Clyburn
     Courtney
     Hanna
     Hinojosa
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (MS)
     Napolitano
     Payne
     Sarbanes

                              {time}  1422

  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.
  Stated against:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 24th, 2015, I was 
absent during rollcall vote No. 380. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``no'' on H. Res. 333--Rule providing for consideration of both 
H.R. 2042--Ratepayer Protection Act of 2015 and H.R. 2822--Department 
of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
2016.

                          ____________________