PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2218, COAL RESIDUALS REUSE AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2013, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1582, ENERGY CONSUMERS RELIEF ACT OF 2013; Congressional Record Vol. 159, No. 107
(House of Representatives - July 24, 2013)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages H4995-H5002]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2218, COAL RESIDUALS REUSE AND 
 MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2013, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1582, 
                  ENERGY CONSUMERS RELIEF ACT OF 2013

  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 315 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 315

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2218) to amend subtitle D of the Solid Waste 
     Disposal Act to encourage recovery and beneficial use of coal 
     combustion residuals and establish requirements for the 
     proper management and disposal of coal combustion residuals 
     that are protective of human health and the environment. 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 the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce now printed in the bill. The committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the 
     committee 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 committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
     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 the adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 
     declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 1582) to protect consumers by prohibiting the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from 
     promulgating as final certain energy-related rules that are 
     estimated to cost more than $1 billion and will cause 
     significant adverse effects to the economy. 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 113-19. That amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Denham). The gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 1 hour.

                              {time}  1300

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. 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 315 provides for 
consideration of two pieces of legislation passed by the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce. The first, H.R. 2218, the Coal Residuals Reuse and 
Management Act of 2013 introduced by my friend on the committee, Mr. 
McKinley from West Virginia, passed out of committee with a strong 
bipartisan vote with 54 bipartisan cosponsors. The second piece of 
legislation, H.R. 1582, the Energy Consumers Relief Act of 2013, was 
introduced by my friend Mr. Cassidy from Louisiana.
  The rule before us today provides for 1 hour of general debate on 
each of the bills included in the rule. A total of nine amendments were 
made in order between the two bills, six on the Democratic side and 
three on the Republican side. Further, the minority is afforded the 
customary motion to recommit, allowing for yet another opportunity to 
amend each piece of legislation before it's final vote.
  H.R. 2218, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act of 2013, is a 
product of hours of work over the course of the past few years that the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley) has put in to perfect this 
legislation. Indeed, the legislation includes numerous provisions 
offered by Democrats and even reflects input by President Obama's own 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  This legislation was prompted by a move in June of 2010 by the 
Environmental Protection Agency to regulate coal combustion residuals. 
In this rule, the Environmental Protection Agency set out three 
proposals for coal residuals, commonly referred to as coal ash. Coal 
residuals are often recycled in an environmentally sound fashion and 
repurposed for use in roads, parks, golf courses, and any other number 
of safe manners. Unfortunately, many in the industry viewed these 
proposed Environmental Protection Agency regulations as placing 
barriers to the continued use or recycling of coal ash.
  In response to these concerns, Mr. McKinley's bill would provide for 
minimum Federal standards but allow States to craft a permitting 
program that could be tailored to the needs in each individual State. 
The bill makes clear that it does not provide the Environmental 
Protection Agency with new rulemaking authority. Further, it requires 
the Environmental Protection Agency to defer to the States with respect 
to the regulation of coal ash. This would allow Sates to protect human 
health and the environment by adapting an existing solid waste 
regulatory program for coal ash. To ensure adequate safety measures for 
human health, the bill requires installation of groundwater monitoring 
at all structures that receive coal ash.

[[Page H4996]]

  The second bill included in today's rule has been carefully designed 
to protect consumers from a runaway Environmental Protection Agency 
which, in my experience as a member of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, constantly uses some pretty strange figures and some funny 
math in depicting the so-called benefits of its rules and rarely fully 
admits to the full cost of the rules it promulgates.
  Since the beginning of President Obama's, Lisa Jackson's, and Gina 
McCarthy's tenure with the Federal Government, the Environmental 
Protection Agency has promulgated regulations imposing billions of 
dollars in costs on our critical power infrastructure. Famously, the 
Environmental Protection Agency has been so out of control that the 
President himself was required to intervene and pull the ozone rule in 
August of 2011, knowing that the cost to the country far outweighed the 
benefits that the Environmental Protection Agency was claiming.
  In response to this out-of-control agency, Dr. Cassidy has carefully 
crafted H.R. 1582, the Energy Consumers Relief Act, which would add 
another measure of protection for consumers legitimately frightened of 
whether or not they will be able to afford their air-conditioning this 
summer or their heating this fall, or even to turn on their lights at 
nighttime.
  The bill is straightforward. It requires that, before promulgating a 
final rule that would impose an aggregate cost of $1 billion on the 
American people, the Environmental Protection Agency must consult with 
the Secretary of Energy, a Cabinet member who will be working for the 
very same President as the Administrator at the Environmental 
Protection Agency. The Energy Secretary must then determine that the 
rule before him would not cause significant adverse effects to the 
economy or to electric reliability, as is his job. That's what his 
mission statement is as the top energy official for our country.
  For too long, the Environmental Protection Agency has dictated our 
energy policy rather than simply our environmental policy. Former 
Energy Secretary Steven Chu seemed to have no problem passively 
delegating his job to Lisa Jackson. I suppose he was too busy losing 
America's money to solar companies. The era of the Environmental 
Protection Agency dictating energy policy must end, and this bill is a 
solid step toward that goal.
  Mr. Speaker, American consumers are struggling. They watch the cost 
of food as it rises right before their eyes. They watch the gas prices. 
Where are they going? Nowhere but up. They watch their electricity 
bills. They are also going up. There is no relief in sight on the 
horizon under this President and this administration.
  House Republicans have not abandoned their promises to protect 
consumers from an out-of-control bureaucracy imposing cost after cost 
on the American people. Today's legislation is yet another few arrows 
in the quiver to stop the Federal Government from taking more money out 
of Americans' pockets.
  As I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' 
on the two underlying bills, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Burgess) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to begin my remarks by correcting my friend from Texas 
with reference to his 1-minute statement previous to the time that we 
began the rule.
  As I understood him, he said that for the last 20 months, Democrats 
have controlled every level of power. Somewhere along the line, I think 
my friend must be very confused about what the responsibilities of the 
United States House of Representatives is and are.
  That said, my recollection is that in this Congress, which has 
consumed 6 months, and in the previous one, which took 2 years, that my 
friends in the Republican Party have controlled the House of 
Representatives. Unless there is no longer one level of power in 
Washington, something is misunderstood by me.
  Mr. Speaker, the House faces a number of pressing issues that have 
bipartisan support and that we could be addressing in our limited time 
before the August recess. For example, we could be reforming in a 
comprehensive manner our Nation's immigration system. We could be 
ending the sequester. I have not met a Democrat or a Republican that 
did not say that the sequester was a bad idea. We could be addressing 
the doubling of student loan interest rates. We could be having a 
conference on a farm bill, or we could be appointing--something that I 
still find very strange--we could be appointing budget conferees.
  It used to be that having a conference around this place was a real 
opportunity for Members, and Members sought to be on the conference. I 
know my first experience I was fascinated by the fact that I'm on a 
conference with the other body, the United States Senate. Little did I 
know that their rules provided for them to vote by proxy, but I came to 
learn that perhaps it wasn't as important as I thought it was, but it 
is important to the process.
  But for any of these important issues to be addressed, Members would 
have to work together to resolve their differences. Instead, we're 
spending our time on two bills that my friends across the aisle know 
will never become law. I don't have to be a betting person to bet 
anybody in this institution that what we are discussing here today will 
not become the law of the land. The reason that I know that is we've 
already done it four times, this same measure, and it didn't see the 
light of day in the other body. This one ain't going to either.
  These bills today show what I've been saying for quite some time now, 
and it's that my Republican colleagues really are not manifesting 
interest in actually fixing our country's problems. In fact, it seems 
that they're more happy to simply bring Congress to a standstill and 
call that success.
  Mr. Speaker, political victories are not victories for struggling 
families. In case these bills are not clear enough evidence, my friends 
recently released their messaging plan for the August work period in 
our respective districts. That plan is called ``Fighting Washington for 
All Americans.'' Wow. Despite the irony, I would almost want to call it 
hypocrisy of sitting Members of Congress trying to paint themselves as 
outsiders and reformers while ignoring their key role in creating the 
gridlock. Fighting Washington for All Americans urges Members to 
consider Washington as a place where nothing good happens, so the less 
governing that gets done, the better. Yet these two bills today 
completely contradict those ideas.
  H.R. 1582 gives the Department of Energy unprecedented authority to 
veto Environmental Protection Agency-related regulations. Not only does 
the bill prevent the EPA from finalizing critical public health and 
environmental rules, it instructs the Department of Energy to conduct a 
duplicative and convoluted analysis without any new resources. These 
are the people that say bureaucracy is a problem, and yet they're 
creating additional bureaucracy within the framework of these two 
measures.

                              {time}  1315

  I said yesterday in the Rules Committee I would be astounded at how 
much time it's going to take the Energy Department and the EPA to 
coordinate their efforts. Evidently, these people haven't been trying 
to talk to these bureaucrats the way that I have over the course of 
time, and it requires, this measure does, extra examination, despite 
the Office of Management and Budget's interagency review of all 
regulations, which includes the Department of Energy, in the review of 
EPA rules.
  I did a little research, Mr. Speaker, on how many times over the 
course of the time that I've been here that Members on the other side 
have offered measures, that did not become law, to abolish the 
Department of Energy. Hear me loud and clear: to abolish the Department 
of Energy.
  Now we come today, after that having been done numerous times, we 
come today and the Energy Department is the answer. These same people 
wanted to, I guess everything with an ``E'' that's in the Cabinet, they 
wanted the Department of EPA to be abolished at one time, the 
Department of Education. They need to change their acronyms over there 
or else they'll find themselves abolished, if they don't get past A, B, 
C, D--E.

[[Page H4997]]

  Not only does the bill prevent the EPA from finalizing critical 
public health and environmental rules, it instructs the Department of 
Energy to do, as I said, duplicative measures.
  As for H.R. 2218, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act, the 
second bill being considered under this rule today, it encourages, in 
my view, a race to the bottom, where the State willing to have the 
least protections will become the dumping ground for the entire 
country.
  I said last night that I would be mad today. I tempered myself with 
my passion over my reflections of my comments in the Rules Committee, 
but I cannot but return to them when I think of the community that I 
live in, and have lived in for now coming up on 51 years, where every 
one of the Superfund Brownfields was in the minority community. Every 
dump that ever dumped anything in Broward County was in minority 
communities--treatment waste across the street from where I live, and I 
guess perhaps these people have not had those experiences.
  While there are certainly inefficiencies within the Federal 
Government--and they are numerous--the 2008 coal ash spill in Kingston, 
Tennessee, is evidence that the Environmental Protection Agency has an 
important role to play in protecting our Nation's public health.
  This bill would allow States to undertake permitting programs for the 
management of coal ash; and let me talk about what's in coal ash. 
People seem to think that coal ash is all of this great stuff. Coal ash 
has in it mercury, lead, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, if you can say 
that. These are things that are poisonous. And yes, it is true that we 
have managed under the regulations to constrain ourselves with many of 
these products that have been utilized for benefit, but do not mistake 
arsenic and cadmium and lead for anything other than harmful products.
  The Federal environmental standards that are put forward here do not 
take into contemplation how important it is to establish uniform 
protections for our Nation's health and environment.
  Let me return to the Kingston, Tennessee, situation. The Tennessee 
Valley Authority is still paying in excess of $1 billion, somewhere in 
the neighborhood of $1.2 billion for taking this stuff and dumping it 
in Uniontown, Alabama, 100 feet from where people live; and, I suggest, 
as is the case in the community that I am privileged to serve, where 
people that are friends of mine have died as a result of not coal ash 
but dumps being in their communities and incinerators burning it, and 
it's the same in many respects.
  I compliment Florida Power & Light, the largest utility in my State, 
for destroying their two coal ash plants in Fort Lauderdale, and we 
still find that Florida Power & Light still manages their business well 
enough to make handsome profits.
  As far as electric rates going up, I would suggest to my friend, it's 
sort of like health care measures. And I continue to ask everybody, 
tell me the day, before there was anything called ObamaCare, tell me 
the day when your insurance rates for health went down. Tell me the day 
that your utilities went down. I don't recall any period where that 
happened; and somewhere along the line, we need to address these things 
in meaningful ways.
  Different standards in each State provide an economic incentive to 
send coal ash to the State with the lowest level of regulation. This 
bill will not ensure the safe disposal of coal ash or make current law 
any stronger.
  Fighting Washington--that's what you're getting ready to say in 
August--does not keep our air and water clean. Fighting Washington does 
not provide the sick with medical treatment. Fighting Washington does 
not keep Wall Street from preying on the American people. Fighting 
Washington does not provide student loans for children who aren't going 
to be able to return to school this year because of the prohibitive 
costs.

  Fighting Washington does not provide immigration reform in a 
comprehensive manner. And somewhere along the line we have to 
understand there are more than 11 million people in this country that 
are here illegally. And I can point to you people that work right 
around this Capitol--and a few that are in it--that we rely upon, that 
we need to straighten this law out about. But we prefer to fight 
Washington.
  Fighting Washington doesn't help the Centers for Disease Control 
prevent us from having diseases. At Robert E. Lee High School in 
Fairfax County, one of the best counties for education in this country, 
they've had a recall of students for tuberculosis, something I thought 
we had pretty much abolished. But when we can't find the necessary 
research money and we can't find the necessary provisions--largely 
because we're fighting Washington--then we're going to have other 
outbreaks like that that we have to contend with.
  Fighting Washington doesn't provide the National Institutes of Health 
the things to do to provide women's health and male research in order 
for us to better the health of the United States of America.
  Fighting Washington makes for great talking points, and might even 
make for great fundraising. It might make for a good bumper sticker, 
but it is far from a serious strategy to actually make this country 
better. A better title than ``Fighting Washington for Americans'' would 
be ``Washington Fighting for Americans.''
  Now this do-nothing Congress, and I've been here 21 years, is giving 
new meaning to do nothing. And all of this repealing things didn't just 
start this year. Next week, we'll be back here on the floor talking 
more repeal. We're going to have something called the REINS Act. We're 
real good up here at naming things--R-E-I-N-S. We're going to be doing 
some more repealing.
  But in the 112th Congress--I looked back--we had 137 votes to block 
actions to prevent pollution. We had 55 votes targeted at the 
Department of Energy. We had 57 votes to defund or repeal clean energy 
initiatives. We had 47 votes to promote offshore drilling. We had 81 
votes targeted at the Department of the Interior. We had 87 votes to 
undermine protections for public lands and wilderness. We had 53 votes 
to block actions that address climate change. We had 38 votes to 
dismantle the Clean Water Act. So 317 repeal votes. I've changed you-
all's name. It's no longer the Republicans; it's the ``Repealicans.'' 
You must be people that just repeal.
  And over in the other body, they're ``Republistructionists'' because 
their whole objective--and that gets ignored here when we start talking 
about who's responsible for what. It gets ignored that the minority in 
the other body has arcane rules that permit them to block everything, 
and that's what they've done, everything you haven't blocked or sought 
to repeal. Here we have been trying to get health care for people, and 
you-all are voting to repeal health care 39 different times.
  I'm tired of voting on that kind of stuff. I want to vote on 
something that's going to provide some jobs for America. I want to vote 
on something that's going to help some students have some jobs when 
they get out of school. I want to vote on something that's going to 
allow for technology and innovation to catch up with what's going on in 
the world. I want to make sure that we exact our responsibilities, 
particularly with reference to education.
  I just left a meeting with homeless providers and nonprofits. I want 
to make sure that there's Meals on Wheels. I want to vote on something 
to make sure that every child has an equal opportunity for a very good 
education in this country. I want to vote on something that's going to 
look 50 years down the road to what America looks like, and not 50 
months from now, or not 1 month from now in August when you're going to 
be fighting Washington.
  I'm going to be up here with you in Washington, and we are consummate 
insiders, and it's ridiculous for you to go home and try to tell 
somebody you're anything other than that. And you do control one-third 
of the legislative body. And you do have exacting responsibilities 
given to you under Article I that you're not exercising. You have the 
Ways and Means' ability. You have the numbers to undertake to do those 
things.
  So, yeah, I'm mad. And I think many in America are mad, too, with a 
Congress that's doing nothing.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute for a couple of 
brief responses.
  First off, I don't know whether the gentleman misheard or only caught 
me

[[Page H4998]]

in midsentence. I was responding to the minority leader's statement 
about this September is the 4-year anniversary of the crash in the 
economy, and the preceding 20 months, from September of 2008, in the 
Congress, all of the levers of power were handled by the Democrats.
  Now, on this issue of fighting Washington, good strategy, bad 
strategy, I can't address that. But I do know what's going on out in 
this country--people are frightened of Washington. They're not fighting 
Washington; they are scared. Why are they scared? What are they seeing 
with the NSA? What do they see with the TSA when they go to the 
airport? What are they seeing with the IRS? Nobody likes the IRS to 
start with, but now people are concerned that their First Amendment 
rights are going to be trampled by an out-of-control Federal agency. 
And I have to tell you what, Mr. Speaker, it all devolves back to the 
administration. Yeah, the Congress has its own problems, but the 
administration is actually what is driving the frightening of America, 
not the fighting of America.
  I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
McKinley).
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule.
  For over 33 years, Congress has wrestled unproductively on how to 
deal with coal ash, which is an unavoidable by-product of burning coal.
  The bill before us today provides a resolution, finally, to this 
issue and avoids kicking the can down the road.
  H.R. 2218 has two parts. The first part codifies the previous EPA 
studies that were conducted in 1993 and 2000 under Bill Clinton, both 
of them. I have copies of it here. And perhaps those that need to read 
those reports would understand that in the 1993 and in the 2000 
reports, they concluded that coal ash is a nonhazardous material and 
should be beneficially recycled for use in products such as concrete 
block, brick, wallboard, and used in our roads and bridges across 
America.
  The second part, unfortunately they're not aware of it yet, but if 
they'd read the bill, they would find that it has been significantly 
rewritten since last year. We listened to what people were saying. We 
listened to the EPA, we listened to the administration, and 
incorporated those into this bill, so that this second part now 
provides for all new and existing landfills to be State run, using a 
Federal law known as RCRA, which in and of itself incorporates the 
Federal guidelines for protecting ``human health and the environment.''
  Consequently, disposal requirements under H.R. 2218 will require 
composite liners, dust control, groundwater monitoring, financial 
assurances, emergency action plans, inspections, and structural 
stability, just to name a few. In fact, the EPA states that RCRA's 
primary goals are to:

       Protect human health and the environment, to reduce the 
     amount of waste generated, and to ensure that wastes are 
     managed in an environmentally sound manner.

                              {time}  1330

  For the first time, there will be a uniform national standard for 
disposing of coal ash. However, as you just heard, you hear opponents 
of this legislation state this legislation does not protect human 
health and the environment. But quite frankly, that's not the case.
  H.R. 2218 not only includes nine different references and sections of 
RCRA which protect human health and environment, but also incorporates 
the existing RCRA part 258 regulation.
  To use the words of the EPA, ``EPA believes that part 258 criteria 
represents a reasonable balance ensuring the protection of human health 
and the environment.''
  The opponents of this measure seem to lack a fundamental 
understanding, Mr. Speaker. There are jobs at stake here, 316,000 jobs 
across America. It's really that simple.
  A compromise is available. Anyone who opposes this rule will continue 
to support the status quo. If we do nothing, coal ash, which is 
generated every day in 48 of the 50 States, will continue to be 
disposed of. The status the way it's been since the 1950s and '60s and 
the unwarranted stigma that's associated with recycled materials will 
continue.
  Fortunately, finally, today, after listening and compromising and 
working together, there appears to be an emerging consensus to allow 
for the beneficial recycle of coal ash, and the concerns raised by a 
previous Congress have been addressed.
  Mr. Speaker, after 33 years of fussing with this issue, it's time to 
put it to rest.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  And would the Speaker be kind enough to tell both sides how much time 
we have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 13\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 17\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Several of our colleagues, including the previous speaker, are 
suggesting that this bill is better than previous versions. But this is 
actually the worst version yet from a public health and environmental 
perspective.
  All you have to do is look at the Statement of Administration Policy 
to see how this bill has gotten worse. The administration is concerned 
that there's no clear and appropriate authority for taking corrective 
action on unlimited or leaking impoundments or units.
  Unlike H.R. 2273, from the last Congress, this says that an unlined 
impoundment that is found to be contaminating groundwater only has to 
close after alternative disposal capacity is available at the same 
site. Well, many of these facilities don't have the space for 
additional capacity at the same site. That means that the pollution can 
go on for years, or even indefinitely.
  This bill is the worst version of coal ash legislation yet. That's 
why all the environmental groups oppose this legislation. They even 
sent a letter to the House today that states, ``This bill is more 
dangerous to human health and environment than previous versions of 
this legislation.''
  Mr. Speaker, I'm very sad today. One of my college classmates is 
being funeralized, or has been funeralized as we are speaking. Her 
funeral was at 11 o'clock. She lives in a community called Golden 
Heights. In Golden Heights, in a 2-square mile radius from a dump that 
dumped into that community for a considerable period of time, the 
incidence of cancer of dear friends of mine, male and female, is 
inordinately high by comparison to any other place in the State of 
Florida.
  Something is wrong with the picture of continuing to pollute and to 
not be mindful of who are the victims of that pollution.
  Mr. Speaker, I make the distinction that I was not talking about coal 
ash, and I'm glad I don't live near one of those places where they are 
dumping like in Uniontown, Alabama.
  If we defeat the previous question, I'm going to offer an amendment 
to the rule to bring up H.R. 2070, Representative Tim Bishop's bill to 
protect consumers from price gouging at the gas pump.
  To discuss his bill, I would like now to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), my friend.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I rise in opposition to the rule, and urge my colleagues to defeat 
the previous question so that the House can consider pro-consumer, job-
protecting legislation, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act, which 
would deter the sale of gasoline at excessive prices.
  I introduced this legislation so that my constituents and Long Island 
businesses are not harmed by unscrupulous business practices designed 
solely to increase profit margins.
  My constituents are facing rising prices at nearly every turn, on top 
of stagnated wage growth. They're worried about paying for college, 
paying the mortgage, saving for retirement, or just paying for 
groceries. They're also wondering what Congress is doing for them to 
create jobs and to raise their standard of living.
  AAA estimates gas prices are expected to increase as the summer 
continues. In fact, AAA reports that the average price per gallon is up 
to $4 on Long Island from $3.87 a week ago. This comes as Americans are 
heading to Long Island's beaches, historic villages, and open spaces. 
Excessive gas

[[Page H4999]]

prices will cost Long Island businesses and jobs, and that's something 
that we cannot let happen on Long Island or anywhere else in this 
country.
  The east coast is also in the midst of hurricane season, which can 
bring out the unscrupulous who would take advantage of hardworking 
families, as we witnessed in the aftermath of Sandy. In fact, just this 
week a New York State judge fined one Long Island gas station, and two 
others have reached settlements with the New York Attorney General's 
Office for price gouging.

  This Congress should protect those harmed by natural disasters so 
they don't have to worry about price gouging while they rebuild their 
homes, communities, businesses, and livelihoods. Let's do it now before 
the next crisis erupts.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, 
support consumers and jobs, and support the Federal Price Gouging 
Prevention Act.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds for 
response, pending which I'm going to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady 
from West Virginia.
  In the brief 7 months that I have spent on the Rules Committee in 
this Congress, there's only one time where the administration has not 
issued a veto threat to legislation we were considering under the Rules 
Committee. This is H.R. 2218, Mr. McKinley's bill. They voiced 
problems, but they did not issue a veto threat. That is a red letter 
day in this institution.
  Every other piece of legislation that's come to the floor has done so 
under a threat of a veto by the administration.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. 
Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule 
and the two underlying energy bills that the House will consider today. 
I'm a proud cosponsor of both of these bills because they will protect 
West Virginia jobs and prevent increases in electricity costs for many 
of those millions of folks across this country that cannot afford it.
  My colleague, Mr. McKinley, has worked tirelessly to see that H.R. 
2218 has met the demands and answered the questions.
  And to my colleague from Florida, when he stated that he's glad he 
doesn't live in these areas, guess what? We do. So it's exceedingly 
important to us that we do this the right way. And that's why I'm 
supporting the framework for state regulation that will ensure that 
coal ash will be used productively.
  I visited the Sutton Dam in my district for its 50-year anniversary. 
And I can tell you, I was there when it was built, and I was there 50 
years later. As they were describing the Sutton Dam and how successful 
it's been--and it's still a fortress of strength, holding the water 
back--they started talking about the construction materials used 50 
years ago.
  And guess what?
  Coal ash was one of those construction materials that was used to 
strengthen this dam, and to also have it stand the test of time.
  So, I think the regulatory uncertainty that's been around for years 
about what to do about coal ash has really cut the use of coal ash by 
millions of tons. But also, wouldn't we rather be recycling and reusing 
this in a productive measure, rather than increasing the impoundments 
and increasing any kind of risk to the environment?
  This bill just makes perfect sense.
  And the second bill addresses the growing number of billion-dollar 
EPA rules. In my view, billion-dollar EPA rules have two major costs: 
costs of jobs, and the cost to seniors and those on fixed incomes and 
the folks who are trying to heat their homes or cool their homes to be 
able to meet the high cost of electricity. So these make great sense to 
me.
  I'm very proud of my colleague from West Virginia for bringing this 
to the floor for the fifth time, and it will pass again.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  The previous speaker is a person that, there are few in Congress that 
I have greater respect for. I certainly understand the dynamics of 
living in communities. In my judgment, she's absolutely correct that 
what we should be doing is everything we can to constructively make 
sure that we are about the business of ensuring the health of the 
communities that we live in.
  So, to that degree, while I stand by my position that I'm glad I 
don't live next to these facilities, unfortunately, I live close to, 
and have for some time, facilities that have been harmful that claimed 
that they were protecting the health and the environment of people.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee, my friend from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) said something that I would like to correct. 
He'll be down here, I'm sure, later today or whenever this measure 
comes up. He noted that the Environmental Protection Agency testified 
``that they do not oppose'' this coal ash bill.
  I want to make sure that everyone knows that the Environmental 
Protection Agency said that because they are not permitted to take a 
position on legislation, only the administration is allowed to say they 
support or oppose legislation. And in the administration position last 
night, they did not say that they don't support the coal ash bill, nor 
was it a veto threat.
  I would urge my colleague from Texas to point me to the time that 
Barack Obama has vetoed something.
  One of the things, I've been on that committee--he's been there 7 
months. I've been there years, and I've been there with other 
Presidents, and it is not uncommon for Congress to propose and to have 
the administration oppose and vice versa.
  Mr. Speaker, both of these bills before us today are so tilted toward 
commercial operations that they reflect a warped sense of what is 
important to the people in this great country of ours. These bills 
undermine environmental laws that have been proven to protect 
communities and provide for the development of energy to run America.
  While we need to develop laws that promote energy and commerce, snide 
commentary regarding failed policies at the Department of Energy 
ignores the number of successes through the years under different 
administrations and this one that the Department of Energy has put 
forward.
  We cannot, in many respects, develop laws that promote energy and 
commerce and ignore the consequences of those activities. Pollution is 
not equivalent to progress.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the 
underlying bills, and I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment to the rule in the Record, along with extraneous material 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' and to stop being ``Repealicans'' and be about the business of 
trying to do something constructive in this House of Representatives.
  I would ask them 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know, in order for this economy to flourish, 
energy has to be available and energy has to be affordable. 
Unfortunately, the situation we've seen in recent years is anything but 
that.
  The Department of Energy was created back in the 1970s in response to 
the Arab oil embargo. The Department of Energy was created to deal with 
the situation of scarcity.

                              {time}  1345

  Unfortunately, the Department of Energy has not evolved since that 
time. And where do we find ourselves today? We find ourselves right on 
the threshold, right on the horizon of America being an energy 
exporter, again, for the first time in a couple of decades. That's a 
huge change.
  Has the Department of Energy changed and kept pace with the reality 
that is going on in development of energy in State lands, private 
lands, and, yes, some Federal lands? Have they kept pace with the 
development within the industry? I submit they have not. I submit that 
they have been an impediment.

[[Page H5000]]

  Yes, I'd be happy to work on improving where the Department of Energy 
could be, in fact, a facilitator rather than an obstruction for 
developing energy for our economy. Because we know without available 
and affordable energy, the promise that the economy can create the 
number of jobs that it needs to create--not just to replace those jobs 
that have been lost, but all of those people who are getting to the age 
where they expect a job to be there for them--and without that energy 
production, it's not going happen.
  Now, I do want to talk about the other bill that's before us today, 
Dr. Cassidy's bill, H.R. 1582. Let's think about this for a minute. The 
Congress works its will on a bill. It becomes law. That law then goes 
to the regulatory agency. They work their will on the bill. And we all 
know the story. A thousand-page bill here on the floor of the House can 
generate 10,000 pages of regulation in the Federal Register.
  I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker, but it's hard to discipline 
myself to wake up every morning and read what was written in the 
Federal Register the day before. The American people who are out there 
creating and producing certainly don't have time to do that.
  But when these rules are then visited upon the people, what happens 
then? Well, they just simply have to accept the effect of those rules. 
Congress did that a couple of years ago. They are not playing in that 
arena any longer.
  Here's what Dr. Cassidy says. He says that before promulgating a 
final rule that would impose an aggregate cost of $1 billion on the 
American people, the Administrator of the EPA has to consult with the 
Secretary of Energy. This seems like a logical and straightforward 
maneuver. In fact, we will talk about the REINS Act in the weeks to 
come. And they have to come back to Congress and get us to either say 
``yes'' or ``no'' on that regulation that is going to have such a 
profound effect on the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I've been in business before. I've made investments 
before. I know very well if someone comes to investors with a cash call 
and says you're going to have to pony up a lot more money here, the 
very least that the investor expects at that point is a pro forma, a 
profit and loss sheet, or some reasonable expectation that there can be 
a return on investment.
  You say, Wait a minute, nobody's coming to the American people with a 
cash call. Well, it's called April 15. And it is a cash call. And we 
owe them that scrutiny. The Congress owes them that scrutiny; the 
Department of Energy owes them that scrutiny. I would assert we owe 
them an up-or-down vote on those regulations that are going to have 
such a profound effect on the economy.
  Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of two 
critical bills ensuring that the American people are not further 
penalized by out-of-control policies coming out of the Environmental 
Protection Agency. Consumers need relief, it is clear.
  For that reason, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the previous question, an 
``aye'' vote on the rule, and an ``aye'' vote on the two underlying 
bills.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

     An amendment to H. Res. 315 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

       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. 
     2070) to protect consumers from price-gouging of gasoline and 
     other fuels, 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. 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. 2070.


        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. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 191, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 399]

                               YEAS--224

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     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

[[Page H5001]]


     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--191

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

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Barletta
     Bustos
     Campbell
     Cardenas
     Carter
     Coble
     Cohen
     Grimm
     Herrera Beutler
     Horsford
     McCarthy (NY)
     Pallone
     Rokita
     Rush
     Schock
     Sewell (AL)
     Speier
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1413

  Messrs. McINTYRE and LARSON of Connecticut, Ms. MENG, and Mr. 
GARAMENDI changed their votes from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. GRAVES of Missouri and CULBERSON changed their votes from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall 
vote 399, if present, I would have voted ``no.''
  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. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. 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 232, 
noes 188, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 400]

                               AYES--232

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

                               NOES--188

     Andrews
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore

[[Page H5002]]


     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Barletta
     Bustos
     Campbell
     Coble
     Grimm
     Herrera Beutler
     Horsford
     McCarthy (NY)
     Owens
     Pallone
     Rokita
     Simpson
     Tipton


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1422

  Mr. LOEBSACK changed his vote from ``present'' to ``no.''
  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.

                          ____________________