businesses the certainty they deserve. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. marino: i'm going to yield e gentleman -- one minute to congressman lamar smith. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, is recognized for one minute. . mr. smith: i thank my colleague from pennsylvania and fellow member of the judiciary committee for yielding me a minute. mr. chairman, i oppose this amendment. the social cost of carbon is a flawed concept that should play no role in the environmental decisionmaking process. it is based on speculative formulases -- formulas and has no basis in reefment they can be man knit plated to support any regulation. the social cost of carbon is a political tool the obama administration uses to impose its extreme agenda on the american people. it is also another way that the administration tries to use secret science and data to

justify questionable rule making. speculating on the social cost of carbon should be restricted not expanded. for these reasons an agency should not use the social cost of carbon and its environmental review or environmental decisionmaking process. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california has yielded back. mr. marino: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. all time having now expired on the -- debate on the amendment. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. those opposed will say no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

mr. peters: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in house report 114-261. or what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. gosar: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: cord the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8, printed in house report number 114-261, offered by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 420, the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to offer a commonsense amendment that will protect americans' jobs and our economy by prohibiting federal agencies from being forced to

follow job killing and unlawful draft guidances, that sneakly seek to implement federal policies that pave the way for cap and trade-like mandates. congress and the american people have repeatedly rejected cap and trade proposals pushed by this government and big government allies. knowing he can't lawfully enact carbon tax plan, president obama has chosen to circumvent congress and seeking to address climate change by creating lose and getting creative with the clean air act. the underlying bill already prohibits federal agencies from utilizing the social cost of carbon valuation furthermore, the social cost of carbon evaluation, was rejected four times by this very body last congress. my simple clarifying amendment adds to the obama administration's revised draft guidance for greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of climate change that were issued by the white house in december of 2014 to the definition for

social cost of carbon in the bill. this straightforward amendment is commonsense of this deeply flawed guidance instructs agencies to include a controversial measure of the social cost of carbon into their analyses and is the obama administration's latest tool for attempting to implement this terrible new model that has consistently been rejected by the house. roger, a self-described lifelong environmentalist and career environmental lawyer, testified at the, 2015 house natural resources committee hearing on the revised guidance and flaws associated with the social cost of carbon model, stating that the social cost of carbon estimates suffer from a number of significant flaws that should exclude them from the nepa process. first, projected cost of carbon emissions can be manipulated by changing key parameters such as time frames, discount rates, and other values that have no relation to a given project undergoing revufmente as a result, applying social cost of

carbon estimates can be used to promote predetermined policy preferences rather than provide objective nd evaluation of a specific proposed federal action. second, o.m.b. and the other federal agencies developed the draft social cost of carbon estimates without any known pier review or opportunity for -- peer review or opportunity for public comment during the development process this. process is antithetical to nepa's central premise that before an agency's decisionmaking must be based on transparency an open dialogue with the public. third, o.m.b.'s draft social cost of carbon is based on global rather than domestic cost and ben fifments this is particularly problematic for nepa reviews because the courts have established that atecies cannot consider transnational impacts in the nepa reviews. fourth, there is still considerable uncertainty in many of the assumptions and data elements used to create the draft social cost of carbon estimates, such as the damage functions and modeling time

horizons. in light of the lack of transparency in the o.m.b. pro process these concerns are particularly problematic. mr. march tella's testimony was spot on. congress not washington bureaucrats on behalf of the president should take date our country's climate changepolicy. these sweeping new changes seeking to be implemented by the white house did not go through normal regulatory process and there was no public comment. furthermore, the obama administration has refused to answer pivotal questions about this guidance and even failed to send a witness to a may, 2015 hearing on this matter. while the obama administration acknowledged the draft guidance is not legally enforceable, you best better believe the federal agencies that receive the 3 is-page revised guidance will treat this document like it was signed into law by the president. unfortunately, this administration just doesn't get it and continues to try to circumvent congress to impose an extremists agenda that is not based on the best available science. worst yet the model utilized can

easily be manipulated. the house has rejected the social cost of carbon numerous times. i ask all those to join me once again and-n rejecting this proposal and its protecting of jobs right here in america. i commend the chairman of the committee for their efforts on this legislation and for recognizing the nepa process is in desperate need of reform. with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves the baffle his time. does the gentlewoman from michigan seek time in opposition to the amendment? mrs. dingell: i do rise to seek that time. thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to the gosar amendment because it would weaken a critical part of the national environmental policy act. the council on environmental quality recently issued draft guidance under nepa detailing how federal agencies should consider the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. this nepa guidance is a commonsense and perfectly legal step towards reducing the federal government's

contribution and vulnerability to global warming. it is smart planning that it accounts for risk and save taxpayers money. something i'm sure that everyone here can support. furthermore, the guidance will only increase nepa's effectiveness as a tool for environmental justice, helping communities that cannot afford expensive lobbyists to protect their homes and values. climate change is hitting low-income communities in communities of color the hardest. instead of blocking progress, we should congratulate president obama on issuing this incredibly important and long overdue draft guidance to federal agencies and urge them to issue a final version as soon as possible. and for the record, my understanding is c.e.q. did have a witness at the hearing that was just referred to. this guidance makes clear that federal agencies must factor greenhouse gas emissions and climate change into their decisions will produce better,

more informed, and more owe fishent incomes. efforts to vips the american ople we have nothing to do with climate change or as pope francis said in words the american people understood yesterday, air pollution, this bill has nothing to do and will harm -- will not slow the pace, it will slow the pace of actual climate change at all, won't slow it, and harm our economy, public health, and national security. that is why this is a bad amendment and we urge you to against it. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from michigan reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from arizona has 30 seconds remaining. mr. gosar: i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized. mrs. dingell: thank you. who has the right to close? the chair: the gentlewoman from michigan has the right to close. mrs. dingell: reserve my time, please. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized to close debate on his amendment.

you are recognized for 30 seconds. mr. gosar: the earth's climate has been changing since the beginning of time. that's something we can all agree on. m.i.t. researchers reported that there was a massive extinction some 250 million years ago that coincided with a massive buildup of carbon dioxide. while the cause of the buildup is unknown, it is safe to say that man did not exist and they still can't explain it. you could take all the carbon producing applications, whether it be oil, coal, and volcanic action and they still can't get the models to predict. so we are leading the blind down the blind. with that, sir, i ask for everybody to vote for this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized. mrs. dingell: i would like to read an excerpt from pope francis' address to us yesterday that stood out to me. i call for a coverage rageous and responsible effort to redirect our steps and to avert the most serious effects of the

environmental deterioration caused by human activity. i am convinced that we can make a difference and i have no doubt that the united states and this congress will have an important role to play. i take that call by our pope very seriously. even where reports today that china is going to announce a cap and trade program. by considering this bill and this amendment, congress is not playing a progressive role. i urge all of my colleagues to vote no on the gosar amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from michigan yields back the balance of her time. all time having now expired for debate on this amendment, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar. all of those in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mrs. dingell: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentlewoman has requested a recorded vote.

pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in house report 114-261. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9, printed in house report number 114-261. offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 420, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from tfpblgts ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, although we have dwnbn debating for a long period of time, let me offer to say to my colleagues to remind them, i see my good friend, chairman goodlatte, on the floor, that this legislation amends the national environmental policy act. with good intentions. however, what this bill will do

actually strips out critical input from federal, state, and local agencies and the public jeopardizing both the environment and public safety. let me repeat that. jeopardizing the american people and environment and public safety. the bill sets new tight deadlines for environmental review, permitting and licensing decisions. and simply as i said earlier, throws wisdom and good judgment to the wind. i serve as a senior member of the homeland security committee and so i rise today with my amendment that improves the bill and helps to protect the homeland by carving a limited exception for construction projects that could be potential targets for terrorist acts such as chemical facilities, nuclear power plants, and other critical infrastructure. let me offer the comments of the congressional budget office. they have no basis for estimating the number of construction projects that could be expedited or the savings that would be realized in this bill. and of course those who support rock that as their main

of gibraltar, if you will, of their main point of argument this is a good bill. a good bill in the face of terrorism? director has indicated that he has determined that their ongoing investigations of suspected terrorist cells operating in all 50 states, and yet we want to expedite this process when it is determining issues dealing our national security to a certain extent. this issue deals with the u.s. nuclear regulatory commission, which the circuit court of appeals of the ninth circuit said, shall account for the fonings environmental impacts of -- potential of environmental impacts in acts of terrorism in the environmental review process. are you going to rush them along? the n.r.c. imposed stringent anti-terrorism requirements on its licenses through 10 c.f.r. section 73 which outlines security requirements for the physical protection of nuclear plants and materials. the jackson lee amendment covers

nuclear power plants and as well chemical facilities to not rush the process to protect the american people. with that, i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas reserves the balance of her time. does the gentleman from virginia claim the time chemical in opposition to the amendment? mr. goodlatte: yes, i do. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. chairman. i do rise in opposition to the amendment. this amendment denies the benefit of the bill's permit streamlining provisions to any and all projects that could be terrorist targets or involved chemical facilities or other critical infrastructure. that includes projects that would help to protect those infrastructures and facilities from terrorist attacks or other adversities. why would we want to delay permitting decisions on projects that would help to protect us? the bill moreover already provides up to 4 1/2 years for

agencies to complete their environmental reviews for new permit applications and reasonable additional time for agencies to wrap up final permit approvals or denials after that. as i've said before, if agencies can't wrap up their environmental reviews in that much time and then meet the bill's remaining deadlines, there is something terribly wrong with those agencies. r. chairman, new projects, whether they be infrastructure projects that make a dam stronger or make a highway safer or make a nuclear facility less vulnerable to attack are all important things to do and we should do them with expedition, not take longer rather than shorter to get them done. because all the time that we are spinning our wheels with the permitting process that can take 20 years or more, we are

more vulnerable during that time. almost all new infrastructure projects are better than what they're replacing, and that should be our guiding principle. get these things done expeditiously. it will make us safer. it will make us a better economy. it will create more jobs. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, how much time do we have remaining? the chair: the gentlewoman from texas has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. jackson lee: the gentleman from virginia? the chair: the gentleman from virginia has three minutes remaining. ms. jackson lee: quite the contrary to my good friend from virginia, what this amendment does is protects the process of e n.r.c. to fully review the nuclear facilities and chemical facilities as well. and in addition, i think when we hear the name chernobyl, fukushima and three-mile

island, we understand the vast and devastating impact of such an incident that may be called or driven by terrorism. i would not want to limit the n.r.c. which has been given court authority by law to investigate and provide an investigation, thorough investigation on the impact on chemical and nuclear plants, and we have it restricted. it takes more than four years to build a nuclear facility, so are you suggesting that the facility then can go on and be built for 10 years, 20 years and we shut off the nepa that has the responsibility for the american people? i don't think that's appropriate. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time and i believe i have the right to close. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. the gentlewoman from texas has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, let me state that the people from the alaska wilderness

league, western environmental law center are against this bill. i ask unanimous consent to place this into the record. the chair: without objection, so ordered. ms. jackson lee: thank you, mr. chairman. the executive council of the president on environmental quality is opposed to this bill. i ask unanimous consent. the chair: this will be approved under general leave. ms. jackson lee: i just want to mention, of course, the president has issued a veto threat. where this bill is going, i do not know. but the main thing i would like to say to my colleagues, can't we stand united around the question of national security? my amendment specifically indicates that this issue of terrorism should be a simple carveout, and i'd ask you you to do -- ask you to do so. let me bring in the comments byle pope. if politics must be at the service of the human person, it follows it cannot be a slave to the economy and finance. politics is instead an expression of our compelling need to live as one in order to build as one the greatest common good, that of a

community with sacrifices, particular interests in order to share justice and peace, its goods, its people and social life. the interest of the american people accepts the jackson lee amendment to carve out an exception in this bill that is opposed by the president and all other aspects of goodwill people here dealing with the environment to deal with this issue. might i remind you, mr. speaker, of the volkswagen scandal. if a more robust thing had been in mind, 400,000 people in the united states might be in a better place. this is a good amendment dealing with the safety and security of the american people. i ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment. the chair: the time of the gentlewoman has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized to close debate on this amendment. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself the balance of the time to say so my colleague from texas that this bill is about national security. the gentlewoman is right. we can all agree on the importance of national security

and protecting our security, but making sure that when projects are planned, they are implemented within a reasonable period of time. and we're talking about years, not days or weeks or even months, years for permitting, years for examination to make slur that these are done carefully. but not decades as happens now with a number of different projects that have been discussed over the last two days that in their current state, without the kinds of repairs, without the kinds of increased improvements, without the kinds of additional safety and security protections that new projects bring online, we are more vulnerable, not less. and i fear that the woman's amendment, the gentlewoman from texas' amendment would do just that. so to me -- ms. jackson lee: if the gentleman will yield? mr. goodlatte: i'd be happy to yield. ms. jackson lee: i thank my good friend for doing so. maybe we can work together on this amendment because it is a

simple carveout. it may be narrow. the bill's provisions should not apply on other agencies' decisions that could deal with potential terrorist atact, target, such as chemical facilities and other critical infrastructure. i don't think that that is something that the gentleman would disagree with. and particularly the nuclear plants which take a longer period of time. mr. goodlatte: well, reclaiming my time. i would say to the gentlewoman that the bill allows lots of time for each stage of the permitting process to cover and discover ways to make a project more secure, to make it safer, to improve it in a variety of different ways and that the gentlewoman's amendment would harm the ability to do that, not help, because it would slow down the process under which we would have these new projects able to begin construction and then be completed. with that i urge my colleagues

to oppose the amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back the balance of his time. all time having now expired for debate on this amendment, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, with that i'd ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas has requested the yeas and nays. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by, the gentlewoman from texas will be postponed. ms. jackson lee: thank you. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in house report 114-261. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. johnson: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in house report 114-261 offered by mr. johnson of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 420, the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, and

a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman, mr. speaker. the purpose of this amendment is simple. it protects the right of the public to comment. this amendment reads, nothing in this act or the amendments made by this act shall have the effective changing any regulation or law that requires or provides full public comment or public participation in an agency decisionmaking process. now, yesterday, mr. speaker, the pope right here in this very room called on each of us to pursue a common good, which he told us requires a courageous and responsible effort. and certainly if we're going to protect the common good, it requires that we protect the right of the public to comment on projects that have an adverse impact on our precious environment right there where

they live. this amendment would restore the right of any member of the public to comment on construction projects that may have an environmental impact, and because of that i don't expect any opposition to this amendment, mr. speaker. like a number of well-respected environmental groups, i oppose h.r. 348, the so-called rapid act, which threatens public health and safety by putting a thumb on the scales of justice in favor of private sector businesses in the project approval process. it is yet another heant regulatory measure whose only design is to grease the wheels of the approval process for projects that are environmentally sensitive. aside from creating duplicative and costly requirements that pertain to certain types of projects, the rapid act would also limit the right of the public to comment on these projects. this bill does that in two ways. first, by reducing opportunities for public input. and secondly, by fast tracking

the approval process through arbitrary deadlines. through an open, flexible and timely process, nepa empowers the public to weigh in on decisions. that means that the local farmer who owns land that would be affected by federal construction project, let's say the nasty pipeline like keystone, it ensures that that local farmer would have the ability and would stand on local footing with the construction industry and with the federal government. my amendment is vital to ensuring that the rapid act does not shut the public out of the process. i'm sure that all minds agree that that is reasonable and with that i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from virginia claim the time in opposition to the amendment? mr. goodlatte: i do, mr. chairman.

the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. chairman. i do rise in opposition to this amendment. i do share, however, the interest of the gentleman georgia in promoting the common good, as mentioned by pope francis when he spoke in this chamber yesterday. but the common good is people coming together to improve their lives by creating improved infrastructure. for transportation, whether that's highways or mass transit, for delivering energy resources to the place where that energy needs to be delivered, to improving the shipping lanes so that goods can be shipped to and from this country and within this country in ways that make it easier for consumers to receive the energy, the products, the transportation that they need and deserve. the rapid act will create jobs

by ensuring that the federal environmental revuned permitting process works like it should, it will also make sure that the infrastructure projects that deliver the common good will do so in a reasonable period of time so people won't have to wait 20 years, like we heard yesterday from the gentleman from texas about simply lowering the draft, the eight feet lower for ships to get up the waterway in east texas to deliver goods and pick up goods from ports in that part of the country. why 20 years to make a decision about dredging eight feet from a waterway? the rapid act is drafted to make agencies operate efficiently and transparently. that is not happening in so many, many instances. but it does not provent citizens from participating in this process. in fact, the bill makes sure that agencies provide the public with reasonable public

comment periods. it authorizes up to 60 days of public comment on environmentally impact statements, up to 30 days of comment on environmental assessments and other documents and grants the lead agency authority to negotiate extensions or provide them on its own for good cause. this is more than fair. by comparison, the national environmental policy act, which has been cited many times on the other side of the aisle, only requires agencies to allow 45 days for public comment, not the 60 days provided in the rapid act. on drafted environmental impact statements and 30 days for public comments on final environmental impact statements. the rapid act also reasonably requires that a person comment on an environmental document before challenging it in court and bring any suit within six months as opposed to six years. opponents should not be able to delay a project indefinitely by playing hide the ball with

agencies or by resting on their rights. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to respond. first, in the narrowed circumstances in which an agency may supplement an environmental impact statement under the bill, the lead agency, quote, may solicit comments from agencies and the public for not more than 30 days beginning on the date of the publication of the supplement. . the regulations require the agency to provide a 45-day public comment period. there is also a provision that allows c.e.q. to approve alternative procedures for supplemental e.i.s.s if circumstances warrant a eveation from the normal process. and secondly, under the bill,

each participating agency is to limit its comments on a project to areas within the authority and expertise of the agency and identify statutory authority for their comments. it specifically prohibits the lead agency from acting upon, responding to, or including any document that is, quote, outside of the authority and expertise of the commenting participating agency, end quote. this is inconsistent with the c.e.q. regulations which allow all agencies, whether local, tribal, state, or federal to comment on any substantive issue relevant to nepa analysis just as all members of the public should be able to do so. so finally i would just point out that even if we are talking about efficiency and if we are talking about the common good, it does the public no good to cut out public comment from this

process. if that is -- if we can agree on that, then we can agree this amendment is a good one. with that i ask for its approval and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized to close debate on his amendment. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i am prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman from georgia has yielded back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized to close debate. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. chairman. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and yield back. the chair: all time having now expired on the debate on this amendment, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have t the amendment is not agreed to. mr. johnson: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman has requested a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the

amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. the committee will rise envelopely to receive -- informally to receive a message. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house the senate has passed with amendment h.r. 1020, cited as the stamp education act of 2015 in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the committee will resume its sitting. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now

resume on those amendments printed in house report 114-261, on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 2 by mr. lowenthal of california. amendment number 3 by mr. grijalva of arizona. amendment number 4 by mr. gallego of arizona. amendment number 5 by ms. jackson lee of texas. amendment number 6 by mrs. dingell of michigan. amendment number 7 by mr. peters of california. amendment number 8 by mr. gosar of arizona. amendment number 9 by ms. jackson lee of texas. amendment number 10 by mr. johnson of georgia. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in house report 114-261 by the gentleman from california, mr.

lowenthal, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2, printed in house report number 114-261, offered by mr. lowenthal of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having is n, a recorded vote ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 170. the nays are 228. he amendment is not adopted. the chair: the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-261 by the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report number 114-261, offered by mr. grijalva of arizona. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes

by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 328. the nays are 86.

on this vote the yeas are 320. the nays are 88. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in house report 114-261 by the gentleman from arizona, mr. gallego, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4, printed in house report number 114-261, offered by mr. gallego of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has

been requested. those in support of the request for rodded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 179, the nays are 230. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in house report 114-261 by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which further proceed wrgs postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redez egg nate the amendment. caller: amendment number 5, printed in house report, offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote isrd -- is ordered.

members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 173, the nays are 237, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in house report 114-261 by the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. dingell, on which further proceed wrgs postponed, and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 114-241, offered by mrs. dingell of michigan. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly

prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 187, the nays are 223. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 7 printed in house report 114-261 by the gentleman from california, mr. peters, on which further proceed wrgs postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 114-261, offered by mr. peters of california. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 179. the nays are 229. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 8 printed in house report number 114-261 by

the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, on which further proceedings were postponed an on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report number 114-261, offered by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for record recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. it this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] been requested.

those in support of the request for record recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. it this

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 223. the nays are 186. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 9 printed in house report 114-261, bly the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which further

proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by vose vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9, printed in house report number 114-261, offered by his jackson lee of texas. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 176. the nays are 232. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the on st for recorded vote amendment number 10 printed in house report 114-261, by the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in house report number 114-261, offered by mr. johnson of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 176. the nays are 23 t the amendment is not adopted. the question son the amendment in the nature of a substitute as

amended. those in favor will vote aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have t the amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: under consideration h.r. 348 and pursuant to house resolution 420, i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 348 and pursuant to house resolution 420, reports the bill back to the house with an aamendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous

question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amended reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have t the amendment is agreed to. the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: bill to provide for improved coordination of agency actions in the adoption of environmental documents for permitting determinations and for other purposes. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed in its current

form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies. reports : ms. kuster the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment, page 31, line 17, ensert 112-141, the following, r, protecting local communities, private property rights and tribal sovereignty. notwithstanding any other provegs of this section the provisions of this section shall not apply in the case of prooget described in paragraph two or environmental document contained in such a project. a project described in this paragraph is any project that asks, affects the safe drinking water sploy or air quality of local communities that are located near the project. b, involves condemnation or infringing the private property rights of american citizens or c, affects the health or

sovereignty of native american tribes. s, making it in america and providing jobs for unemployed workers. ms. kuster: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the reading is ispensed with. the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. kuster: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the final amendment to the -- ms. kuster: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the final amendment. if adopted the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. mr. speaker, we can all agree on the need to ensure that construction projects are completed in a timely and effective manner without the need for unnecessary review or red tape. no one can argue that our current permitting system is perfect. but the bill before us today is yet another misguided republican

attempt to undermine critical environmental protections that we all rely on. this legislation will splinter and unnecessarily accelerate the permitting process in a way that agencies e ability of to evaluate the impact of projects. consequence lit -- consequently it will weaken the ability of our constituents to understand the projects and effectively limit their voice in the projects. this is particularly true for low-income and minority communities that too often are faced with a disproportionate share of pollution and environmental contaminants. in my home state of new hampshire, we are intimately familiar with the need for strong public input in permitting processes. as the permitting moves forward on different energy infrastructure projects, i have been working aggressively to ensure that the views of my

constituents are heard. i'm concerned that the permitting process under this legislation will make it more difficult for effective environmental review to move forward in new hampshire. and that's why i'm offering my amendment today to help provide some adegreesal protections to safeguard human health, the environment, and property rights. specifically, this amendment would exempt from the requirements of the bill any project that was negatively -- that would negatively affect the drinking water sploy or air quality of nearby communities. it also ensures that construction projects covered urn the legislation cannot violate the sovereignty of native american tribes. these provisions would at least ensure that we are limiting the most dangerous consequences of this legislation. additionally the amendment requires that any environmental documents produced pursuant to the legislation include information about whether the project will use equipment and

materials manufactured in the united states and whether it will create jobs for u.s. workers including our veterans. like so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, i have been intently focused on what we can do to grow and expand u.s. manufacturing jobs. and create good-paying middle class jobs right here in america. and in particular as a member of the veterans affairs committee, how we can serve our veterans. the reporting requirement in this amendment will help generate greater awareness for how we utilize american made machinery and products in our construction processes. i urge support for my amendment to make sure that this bill does not harm the health of our constituents and to take an important step toward job creation and hiring of slet rans. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the

gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, after president obama's ill conceived stimulus bill failed, he blamed its failure on the lack of shovel ready construction projects. president obama was even quoted in the press to have joked about it. shovel ready was not as shovel ready as we expected, he said. hard working americans, desperate for jobs, didn't think that was funny. they still don't. they're watching us right now. wanting to know if we can deliver meaningful reform that will create jobs. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house is not in order. mr. goodlatte: let's send a message to them today that we can and we will. for years now the president's

jobs council's recommendation that we streamline the federal permitting process has been stairing the -- staring the president in the face. just last term president obama stood in this house and promised action to slash bureaucracy and streamline the permitting process so we can get more construction workers on the job as fast as possible. mr. speaker, the rapid act is precisely the legislation to do that. it is exactly what our private and public sector leaders have called for. it is what millions of american workers yearning for new work and higher wages need. true to form, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle support this motion to recommit in an attempt to stop this legislation. they can't yet bring themselves to say, yes we can to the cutting of bureaucratic red tape and on instruction. but this motion to recommit is the exact mirror image of everything that is wrong with the federal permitting process

and keeps jobs from the american people. it is nothing but a fabricated argument a procedural device a tried and true tactic of delay. an excuse for members of congress to duck a vote and not make a needed decision that will bring millions of good-paying, high-paying jobs to the people of this country. the bill does not require a project to be approved, only that an agency timely decides whether or not to approve it. i urge my colleagues to vote against this motion and vote for the rapid act and finally, mr. speaker, all of us today are stunned by the dramatic and courageous decision of the speaker of the house john boehner to retire at the end of october. we thank him for his tireless work. his conservative leadership of the republican conference for nine years, his distinguished service as speaker of the house for nearly five years, and for

his long service to the people of this great country. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is not adopted. ms. cuft every: on this i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is order. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the

motion to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill if ordered. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]